budget allocated to education in 2022

Focus on skill development and vocational education

The education budget 2022 is focusing a lot on skilling programmes which is a boon for the nation as the Covid-19 pandemic has caused a major hit in this field.

• The Skill Hub Initiative of MoE and MSDE will be launched in 5000 skill centres during the next year.
• ITIs will start courses on skilling.
• The Digital Ecosystem for Skilling and Livelihood DESH-Stack e-portal will be launched for the skilling, upskilling and reskilling of the youth.
• The e-portal will also provide API-based trusted skill credentials, payment and discovery layers to find relevant jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities
• The skill sector is to be reoriented to promote continuous skilling avenues, sustainability, and employability, and the National Skill Qualification Framework (NSQF) will be aligned with dynamic industry needs.
• 750 virtual labs will be created in science and mathematics.
• 75 skilling e-labs will be created for simulated learning environments.

E-learning in regional languages

The Covid-19 pandemic caused a major learning loss for Indian students. Approximately 1.5 million schools and 1.4 million ECD/Anganwadi centres were closed during this period.

Through pandemic waves since last year, most schools closed and re-opened several times. Consequently nearly 247 million children could not go to school for more than a year.

• The ‘One class, one TV channel' programme of PM eVIDYA will be expanded from 12 to 200 TV channels for all states to be able to provide supplementary education in regional languages for Classes 1 to 12 to make up for the loss of formal education due to Covid-19 pandemic, especially for students from rural areas, weaker sections and SC-ST communities.
• Teachers will be encouraged to develop quality e-content in different languages and different subjects so that any teacher or student can access the content from anywhere and get benefitted. A competitive mechanism to promote development of quality e-content by the teachers will be created to ensure empowered teachers and curious students.
• The concept of digital teachers in all spoken languages will be developed. Learner facing e-content will be developed in innovative teaching formats such that all content can be made simultaneously available through different mediums like online, on TV and on radio.

Job creation

Unemployment issues have been weighing heavy on India’s youth.

• Nirmala Sitharaman said the government was targeting the creation of 60 lakh jobs in 14 sectors through PM Gati Shakti and the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) Scheme for achieving Aatmanirbhar Bharat.
• Sectors of animation, gaming, and comics could bring in an employment boom. An animation, visual effects, gaming, and comic (AVGC) promotion task force will be set up to realize the potential of this sector is also a very welcome step. This will also aid in experiential learning.
• Startups will be promoted to facilitate ‘Drone Shakti’ and for Drone-As-A-Service which will create employment opportunities.

Focus on specialised learning in higher education

Certain sectors like the agriculture industry and the urban planning industries in India are being given more focus for better higher education.

• States will be encouraged to revise the syllabi of agricultural universities to meet the needs of natural, zero-budget, and organic farming, and modern-day agriculture.
• Five existing academic institutions in different regions will be developed in centres of excellence in urban planning. These centres will be provided endowment funds of Rs 250 crore each for developing India-specific knowledge in urban planning and design.
• AICTE will take the lead to improve syllabi, quality and access of urban planning courses in other institutions.
• World-class foreign universities and institutions will be allowed in the Gujarat International Finance Tec-City or GIFT City to offer courses in various subjects like Financial Management, FinTech, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

Mental health of students

• The programme will include a network of 23 tele mental health centres of excellence.
• “NIMHANS will be the nodal centre, and IIIT Bangalore will provide technological support for the mental health programme,” Nirmala Sitharaman said.

“The E-Health Research Center at IIITB has been working with NIMHANS, National Health Mission, Govt of Karnataka, on e-Manas, a first of its kind, software platform for mental health management," explains Prof TK Srikanth, Head of E-Health Research Center, IIIT Bangalore.

"This has been deployed by the Govt of Karnataka and is being extended to the monitoring of the DMHP programme as well as psychiatric rehabilitative services. Now, IIITB will help integrate eManas with tele-health services, thus providing a comprehensive platform for mental health care that can scale up nationally," he adds.

Read: Did the education budget 2022-23 satisfy the expectations of teachers?

Read: Education Budget 2022: From better digital infrastructure to better education loans, here's what experts want

Read: Budget 2022: Key updates for the education sector

Refine Results By

The federal budget in fiscal year 2022: an infographic.

The federal deficit in 2022 was $1.4 trillion, equal to 5.5 percent of gross domestic product, almost 2 percentage points greater than the average over the past 50 years.

Related Publications

• CBO Releases Infographics About the Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2022 March 28, 2023
• Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2022: An Infographic March 28, 2023
• Mandatory Spending in Fiscal Year 2022: An Infographic March 28, 2023
• Revenues in Fiscal Year 2022: An Infographic March 28, 2023

What’s in Biden’s budget proposal

The Biden administration is seeking massive funding increases toward education, health and the environment, while maintaining current spending levels on defense and homeland security, according to a budget request unveiled Friday. The release begins the annual negotiation process between the president and Congress to determine how funds should be distributed across the government.

Proposed changes to base discretionary funding in Biden’s budget

President Biden’s budget would increase spending by more than 10 percent in 11 of the 15 Cabinet departments. This is a dramatic change from President Donald Trump’s proposals , which often sought to cut spending. Included in most departments’ spending increases is money to address climate change.

[ Biden seeks huge funding increases for education, health care and environmental protection in first budget request to Congress ]

The budget document includes an array of proposals specifically aimed at helping vulnerable populations, including resources for high-poverty schools, vouchers to reduce homelessness and money to combat the opioid epidemic.

The budget plan includes discretionary spending only — the portion of government spending that is set by annual appropriation acts. Excluded is mandatory spending, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Biden is expected to release a full budget later this spring.

Don’t expect this exact budget proposal to become reality. While Democrats control both the Senate and the House, their margins are slim, so there’s sure to be debate and compromise about where to spend the money and how much the government should grow.

[ Biden budget seeks to flip script on Trump administration’s spending priorities ]

Biden’s plan is not just a departure from the cuts that Trump sought. For many departments, it also represents a much larger spending increase than what Obama sought for most of his presidency.

For some notable departments, here’s how the past 13 presidential budgets compared in proposed vs. enacted spending.

For Defense, Biden’s ask is below both Obama’s and Trump’s, while for international funding and the EPA he falls short of the monumental requests that Obama made in his first budget.

Here are more details about what’s in each agency’s proposal.

Jump to department

The Biden administration’s proposal for the USDA places heavy focus on rural communities, with increased funding for broadband initiatives, water infrastructure, clean energy and initiatives to address rural poverty.

[ Read the full Biden budget proposal ]

The proposal also includes a $1 billion increase in nutritional safety net programs, additional funding for initiatives in the March stimulus bill and money toward some of the priorities laid out in the American Jobs Plan.

Key proposed changes

• Proposes funds for infrastructure priorities such as rural broadband access, safe drinking water and addressing orphan oil and gas wells.
• Increases funding for food assistance programs by more than $1 billion.
• Expands funding for rural clean energy development by $1.4 billion.
• Establishes an equity commission to review current farm programs and increases funding for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the USDA.

The big increase in spending for the Commerce Department would be spread across a number of programs, including research into climate change.

The White House wants a large increase for Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to go toward climate research and helping regional and local leaders with “climate data and tools.”

It also seeks to boost Commerce’s ability to help U.S. companies develop semiconductors and other items that the White House believes are of strategic national importance. And there’s a large proposed increase in a program that aims to assist minority-owned businesses.

The proposal for the Pentagon actually represents a slight decrease of about 0.4 percent when adjusted for inflation. The proposal is likely to draw barbs from Republicans, who want increases of 3 to 5 percent annually to upgrade the military, citing the U.S. military competition with China.

Liberal Democrats had called for cuts of at least 10 percent in defense spending, while the Trump administration had forecast spending $722 billion on defense if Donald Trump were reelected.

• The Biden team cites concerns about China in its defense budget request. Priorities include continued investments in building up the Navy, which the Biden administration said is “critical to reassuring allies and signaling U.S. resolve to potential adversaries.” It also includes investment in long-range missiles, which are seen as key to any conflict in the Pacific.
• The budget documents signal a process called “divest legacy systems,” the elimination of some older military equipment. Those kinds of cuts have run into trouble with Congress in the past as they can affect jobs and spending in the home districts of lawmakers.
• The Pentagon during the Biden administration will prioritize climate change, with money set aside to make military installations more resilient.

The increase of $20 billion for the Title I program represents a historic increase for a program that funnels federal dollars to schools serving a significant number of children in poverty. The proposal would more than double funding for the program, to $36.5 billion. That falls short of Biden’s campaign promise to triple spending on the program. Still, it would represent a huge increase, particularly because it comes on top of the rescue act, which just pumped $122 billion to K-12 schools, most of it allocated by the Title I formula.

On higher education, Biden had promised to double Pell Grants, which help low- and moderate-income students pay for college. His proposal for a $400 increase to the maximum award, now at $6,495, falls far short of that. But it would increase spending on the program, now at about $30 billion, by $3 billion. He also would make “dreamers,” who came to the country illegally as children, eligible for the program.

• Proposes $2.6 billion more for special education services to students with disabilities over last year’s allocation. That would bring the total federal contribution to $15.6 billion, about 15 percent of the total costs, and about even with current funding when emergency spending is included. Biden has said he will put the government on a path to funding 40 percent of the total within 10 years.
• Significantly ramps up funding for community schools, which provide comprehensive services to students and their families, and creates a new $100 million grant program to promote racial and economic desegregation.

The White House wants to boost resources for the department with a sprawling portfolio that includes conducting physics experiments, running supercomputers and researching alternative forms of producing energy. But the bulk of the department’s budget goes to maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapon arsenal.

• Spends more than $8 billion, amounting to an increase of at least 27 percent, on the next generation of nuclear reactors, electric vehicles and other alternatives to burning fossil fuels.
• Provides $1 billion to two start-up incubators meant to fund technological breakthroughs in combating climate change.
• Gives $7.4 billion, or a $400 million boost, to the Office of Science, which leads government research into physics, chemistry and other basic science at national laboratories across the country.

Biden is proposing a big funding increase to the agency that will be at the center of his administration’s fight against climate change and the disproportionate impact pollution has on poor and minority communities.

The boost stands in contrast to the deep budget cuts proposed under Trump, who tried unsuccessfully to eliminate several dozen agency programs altogether. Yet even under President Barack Obama, the EPA’s budget remained stagnant as gridlock gripped Congress.

• Adds $48 million in funding for the agency’s Office of Air and Radiation to hire back staff lost under Trump and write new rules combating climate change and stopping the formation of smog in cities.
• Provides $3.6 billion for water infrastructure, a $625 million boost above last year, to replace lead water lines, repair septic systems and make other improvements.
• Spends $936 million on a new environmental justice initiative meant to improve air quality and ramp up environmental enforcement in cities and rural areas traditionally overburdened with pollution.

Biden has argued that the coronavirus outbreak has demonstrated the need to robustly fund the nation’s public health response.

The administration would make new investments to fight the opioid epidemic after drug-related overdose deaths spiked during the pandemic and to ramp up the response to ongoing public health challenges like HIV/AIDS.

The budget also calls for new investments in programs to address racial disparities in health care, reduce the risks of childbirth and support survivors of domestic violence.

Biden also vowed to launch new research into the health effects of gun violence and climate change.

• Adds $1.6 billion in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the biggest annual jump in nearly 20 years, positioned as an investment to head off the next pandemic and restore the embattled agency's luster.
• Adds $9 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health, including $6.5 billion to establish the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), which would initially focus on cancer and diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
• Adds $3.9 billion in funding targeting the opioid crisis through new grants and resources for states, researchers and other responders. HHS also is proposing to expand the workforce of behavioral health specialists.
• Adds $2.2 billion for the Indian Health Service and proposes other changes to create more predictable funding for the program, responding to complaints from public health experts that efforts to provide care for Native Americans and Alaska Natives have been chronically underfunded.

Biden is proposing a large increase in funding to expand access to affordable housing, address homelessness, modernize deteriorating infrastructure in historically marginalized communities, boost homeownership and enforce laws against housing discrimination.

Biden’s proposal for HUD signals a new era for the embattled agency, whose funding and mission to serve America’s poor was consistently threatened under the Trump administration.

HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge said Biden’s funding request “turns the page on years of inadequate and harmful spending requests and instead empowers HUD to meet the housing needs of families and communities across the country.”

• Adds $5.4 billion (for a total of $30.4 billion) to expand federal housing vouchers to help 200,000 additional low-income families, including those at risk of homelessness or people fleeing domestic violence, rent in the private market. The vouchers will also help families who live in racially segregated, poor neighborhoods move to communities with better access to work, transit and educational opportunities.
• Provides $3.5 billion, an increase of $500 million, to prevent and reduce homelessness. The Homeless Assistance Grants would support more than 100,000 additional households, including survivors of domestic violence and homeless youths.
• Provides $1.9 billion, including a $500 million increase, to boost affordable housing supply with new construction and rehabilitation of rental housing.

The administration’s proposal — nearly $5 billion more than Trump’s last proposal — marks a clear about-face from how the previous administration managed the nation’s land.

It provides more money for liberal priorities: more climate science, increased education and law enforcement on tribal lands and an expansion of access to national parks, as well as historical sites, for racial minorities to tell the story of civil rights and human rights struggles.

• Proposes $4 billion for tribal programs, an increase of $600 million from the amount Congress approved last year.
• Instead of increases provided for fossil fuel production under Trump, the current proposal more than doubles the budget to remediate or heal the land scarred by that activity to $450 million.
• Increases funds set aside for adaptations to climate change by $550 million and provides $200 million more for climate studies by agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey.

The Justice Department’s proposal reflects the Biden administration’s new priorities of tougher enforcement of civil rights laws, more federal agents and prosecutors assigned to pursue domestic terrorism cases, and an increase in grants to local law enforcement agencies to fight gun crime and reform police departments.

• Increases discretionary spending for the Civil Rights Division, Community Relations Service and other programs by $33 million for a total of $209 million.
• Spends an additional $101 million to address the growing threat of domestic terrorism. Nearly half of that money would go to the FBI, which has seen its number of domestic terrorism cases double in the past year, while $40 million would go to prosecutor offices to handle the growing workload.

The Biden administration is seeking a major budget increase for the State Department and other international programs in an effort to revitalize Washington’s diplomatic muscle after what it calls “four years of neglect” by the Trump administration.

The Trump White House sought deep cuts at the State Department every year, which Congress largely ignored.

• Proposes $1.2 billion toward helping developing countries reduce carbon emissions.
• Proposes $861 million in assistance to Central America in the hopes of lessening the root causes of migration.
• Proposes an additional $1 billion toward global health security designed to boost research to detect and stamp out future infectious-disease outbreaks “before they become pandemics.”

The administration proposes increasing Labor Department funding to restaff worker protection agencies, expand workforce development programs and address shortcomings in the unemployment system.

• Proposes $2.1 billion to worker protection agencies, an increase of $304 million.
• Increases funding to Registered Apprenticeships by more than 50 percent, requests $100 million to train a clean energy workforce and increases funding to employment services for laid-off workers, low-income adults and at-risk youths.
• Invests $100 million in information technology to address delays and inequities in state unemployment insurance programs.

The Biden administration is proposing new programs to spur rail trips between cities and promote equity in transportation, part of a budget request it described as a “down payment” on its broad aspirations for transforming the nation’s infrastructure to improve quality of life and address climate change.

It marks a major shift in emphasis from Trump administration proposals to cut discretionary spending and privatize transportation assets.

• Creates a new competitive passenger rail grant program, using $625 million to promote passenger rail as a “low-carbon option for intercity travel.”
• Increases funding for Amtrak by 35 percent, to $2.7 billion, providing an expansion along the busy Northeast Corridor and nationwide.
• Raises funding in a major transit grant program by 23 percent, to $2.5 billion, and more than doubles — to $250 million — a separate effort to increase purchases of buses with zero or low emissions.

The increase in Treasury’s budget would seek to allow the Internal Revenue Service to increase audits of tax returns for wealthier Americans and corporations and boost enforcement. Additional money would also be used to expand customer service, both over the phone and in person.

It would also seek to greatly increase funding for Community Development Financial Institutions, which aim to help develop affordable housing and neighborhood reinvestment programs.

The Department of Veterans Affairs would continue to receive spending increases the agency received during the Trump administration, this time with a major boost that includes new money for suicide prevention, women’s health, assistance to homeless veterans and research on toxic exposures.

Including mandatory spending, the total budget for VA would exceed $250 billion.

• Spending on suicide prevention programs, a priority for both the Biden and Trump administrations, would almost double to more than $540 million and include funding to increase the capacity of a crisis line for veterans.
• The agency’s research budget would grow by about 12 percent to almost $900 million. The budget request said the new money would “advance the Department’s understanding of the impact of traumatic brain injury and toxic exposure on long-term health outcomes while continuing to prioritize research focused on the needs of disabled veterans.”

Devlin Barrett , Dan Diamond , Darryl Fears , Peter Finn , Dino Grandoni , Tracy Jan , Dan Lamothe , Michael Laris , Laura Meckler , Damian Paletta and Lisa Rein contributed to this report.

Report | Budget, Taxes, and Public Investment

Public education funding in the U.S. needs an overhaul : How a larger federal role would boost equity and shield children from disinvestment during downturns

Report • By Sylvia Allegretto , Emma García , and Elaine Weiss • July 12, 2022

Download PDF

Press release

Share this page:

Summary 

Education funding in the United States relies primarily on state and local resources, with just a tiny share of total revenues allotted by the federal government. Most analyses of the primary school finance metrics—equity, adequacy, effort, and sufficiency—raise serious questions about whether the existing system is living up to the ideal of providing a sound education equitably to all children at all times. Districts in high-poverty areas, which serve larger shares of students of color, get less funding per student than districts in low-poverty areas, which predominantly serve white students, highlighting the system’s inequity. School districts in general—but especially those in high-poverty areas—are not spending enough to achieve national average test scores, which is an established benchmark for assessing adequacy. Efforts states make to invest in education vary significantly. And the system is ill-prepared to adapt to unexpected emergencies.

These challenges are magnified during and after recessions. Following the Great Recession that began in December 2007, per-student education revenues plummeted and did not return to pre-recession levels for about eight years. The recovery in per-student revenues was even slower in high-poverty districts. This report combines new data on funding for states and for districts by school district poverty level, and over time, with evidence documenting the positive impacts of increasing investment in education to make a case for overhauling the school finance system. It calls for reforms that would ensure a larger role for the federal government to establish a robust, stable, and consistent school funding plan that channels sufficient additional resources to less affluent students in good times and bad. Furthermore, spending on public education should be retooled as an economic stabilizer, with increases automatically kicking in during recessions. Such a program would greatly mitigate cuts to public education as budgets are depleted, and also spur aggregate demand to give the economy a needed boost.

Following are key findings from the report:

Our current system for funding public schools shortchanges students, particularly low-income students. Education funding generally is inadequate and inequitable; It relies too heavily on state and local resources (particularly property tax revenues); the federal government plays a small and an insufficient role; funding levels vary widely across states; and high-poverty districts get less funding per student than low-poverty districts.

Those problems are magnified during and after recessions. Funding inadequacies and inequities tend to be aggravated when there is an economic downturn, which typically translates into problems that persist well after recovery is underway. After the 2007 onset of the Great Recession, for example, funding fell, and it took until 2015–2016, on average, to return to their pre-recession per-student revenue and spending levels. For high-poverty school districts, it took even longer—until 2016–2017—to rebound to their pre-recession revenue levels. And even after catching up with pre-recession levels, revenue levels in high-poverty districts lag behind the per-student funding in low-poverty districts. The general, long-standing funding inadequacies and inequities combined with the worsening of these problems during and in the aftermath of recessions have both short- and long-term repercussions that are costly for the students as well as for the country.

Increased federal spending on education after recessions helps mitigate funding shortfalls and inequities. Without increased federal education spending after recessions, school districts would suffer from an even greater decline in funding and even wider gaps between funding flowing to low-poverty and high-poverty districts.

Increased spending on education could help boost economic recovery. While Congress has enacted one-time education spending increases in difficult economic times, spending on public education should be considered one of the automatic stabilizers in our economic policy toolkit, designed to automatically increase and thus spur aggregate demand when private spending falls. Deployed this way, education spending becomes part of a set of large, broadly distributed programs that are countercyclical, i.e., designed to kick in when the economy overall is contracting and thus stave off or lessen the severity of a downturn. Along with other automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance, education spending thus would provide a stimulus to boost economic recovery.

We need an overhaul of the school finance system, with reforms ensuring a larger role for the federal government. In light of the concerns outlined in this report, policymakers must think differently both about school funding overall and about school funding during recessions. Public education is a public good, and as noted in this report, one that helps to stabilize the entire economy at critical points. Therefore, public spending on education should be treated as the public investment it is. While we leave it to policymakers to design specific reforms, we recommend an increased role for the federal government grounded in substantial, well targeted, consistent investment in the children who are our future, the professionals who help these children attain that future, and the environments in which they work. To establish a robust, stable, and consistent school funding plan that supports all children, investments need to be proportional to the size of the problems and to the societal and economic importance of the sector.

Introduction

The hope for the public education system in the United States is to provide a sound education equitably to all children regardless of where they live or into which families they are born. However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed four interrelated, long-standing realities of U.S. public education funding that have long made that excellent, equitable education system impossible to achieve. First, inadequate levels of funding leave too many students unable to reach established performance benchmarks. Second, school funding is inequitable, with low-income students often and communities of color consistently lacking resources they need to meet their needs. Third, the level of funding reflects an overall underinvestment in education—that is, the U.S. is not spending as much as it could afford to spend in normal times. Fourth, given that educational investments are not sufficient across many districts even during normal times, schools are unable to make preparations to cope with emergencies or other unexpected circumstances. An added, less known feature is that economic downturns make all four of these problems worse. Downturns exacerbate funding inadequacies, inequities, underinvestment, and unpreparedness, causing cumulative harm to students, communities, and the public education system, and clawing back any prior progress. The severity of these problems varies widely across states and districts, as do the strength of states’ and localities’ economic and social protection systems, which may either compensate for or compound the problems.

The pandemic-led recession made these four major financial barriers to an excellent, equitable education system more visible, leading to serious questions about the U.S. education-funding model, which relies heavily on local and state revenues and draws only a small share of funding from the federal government. While public education is one of our greatest ideals and achievements—a free, quality education for every child regardless of means and background—the U.S. educational system is in need of significant improvements.

As the report will show, the core barriers to delivering universally excellent U.S. public education for all children—funding inadequacies and inequities that are exacerbated during tough economic times—were present in the system from the very start. They are the outcomes of a funding system that is shaped by many layers of policies and legal decisions at the local, state, and federal levels, creating widespread disparities in school finance realities across the thousands of districts across the country in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This complex funding puzzle speaks to the need for a funding overhaul to attain meaningful and widely shared improvements.

In this report, we first provide an overview of the characteristics of the U.S. education funding system. We present data analyses on school finance indicators, such as equity, adequacy, and effort, that expose the shortcomings of funding policies and decisions across the country. We also discuss factors behind some of these shortcomings, such as the heavy reliance on local and state sources of funding.

Second, we illustrate that recessions exacerbate the funding challenges schools face. We parse a multitude of data to present trends in school finance indicators both during and after the Great Recession, demonstrating that the immediate effects of federally targeted funds helped schools navigate recession-induced budget cuts. We also look at the shortfalls and inequitable nature of those investments. We explore how increased federal investments—in good economic times and bad—could help address these long-standing problems. We argue that public education funding is not only an investment in our societal present and future, but also is a ready-made mechanism for countering economic downturns. Economic theory and evidence both demonstrate that large, broadly distributed programs providing public support serve as cushions during economic downturns: they spur overall spending and thus aggregate demand when private spending falls. As we note, there are strong arguments for placing public education spending within the broader category of effective fiscal responses to recessions that are countercyclical—designed to increase spending when spending in the economy overall is contracting and thus stave off or lessen the severity of a downturn. Increases in public education spending during downturns work as automatic stabilizers for schools and provide stimulus to boost economic recovery. We review existing research on the consequences of funding in general and of funding changes—evidence that supports a larger role for the federal government.

Third, we discuss the benefits of rethinking public education funding, along with the societal and economic advantages of a robust, stable, and consistent U.S. school funding plan, both generally and as a countercyclical policy. We show that federal investment that sustains school funding throughout recessions and recoveries would provide three major advantages: It would help boost educational instruction and standards, it would provide continued high-quality instruction for students and employment to the public education workforce, and it would stimulate economic recovery. Education funding, in particular, would blanket the country while also targeting areas with the most need, making the recovery more equitable.

We conclude the report with final thoughts and next steps.

This paper uses several terms to refer to investments in education and to define the U.S. school finance system. Below, we explain how these terms are used in the report:

Revenue indicates the dollar amounts that have been raised through various sources (at the local, state, and federal levels) to support elementary and secondary education. We distinguish between federal, state, and local revenue. Local revenue, in some of our charts, is further divided into local revenue from property taxes and from other sources.

Spending or expenditures indicates the dollar amount devoted to elementary and secondary education. Expenditures are typically divided by function and object (instruction, support services , and noninstructional education activities). We rely on data on current expenditures (instead of total expenditures; see footnotes 2 and 30).

Funding generically refers in this report to the educational investments or educational resources. Mostly, when we use funding we refer to revenue, i.e., to resources available or raised, but funding is also used to refer to the school finance system more broadly, and in that case it could be either referring to revenue or expenditures, depending on the context.

For more information on the list of components under each term, see the glossary in the  Documentation for the NCES Common Core of Data School District Finance Survey (F-33), School Year 2017–18 (Fiscal Year 2018) (NCES CCD 2020).

A funding primer

The American education system relies heavily on state and local resources to fund public schools. In the U.S. education has long been a local- and state-level responsibility, with states typically concerned with administration and standards, and local districts charged with raising the bulk of the funds to carry those duties and standards out.

The Education Law Center notes that “states, under their respective constitutions, have the legal obligation to support and maintain systems of free public schools for all resident children. This means that the state is the unit of government in the U.S. legally responsible for operating our nation’s public school systems, which includes providing the funding to support and maintain those systems” (Farrie and Sciarra 2021). Bradbury (2021) explains that state constitutions assign responsibility for “adequate” (“sound,” “basic”) and/or “equitable” public education to the state government. Most state governments delegate responsibility for managing and (partially) funding public pre-K–12 education to local governments, but courts mandate that states remain responsible.

States meet this responsibility by funding their schools “through a statewide method or formula enacted by the state legislature. These school funding formulas or school finance systems determine the amount of revenue school districts are permitted to raise from local property and other taxes and the amount of funding or aid the state is expected to contribute from state taxes. In annual or biannual state budgets, legislatures also determine the actual amount of funding districts will receive to operate their schools” (Farrie and Sciarra 2020).

A quick note on data sources

Some of our analyses rely on district-level data, i.e., the revenues and expenditures use the district as the unit of analysis. We rely on metrics of per-student revenue or per-student spending, i.e., taking into consideration the number of students in the districts. Other analyses use data either by state or for the country, which are typically readily available from the Digest of Education Statistics online. Sometimes the variables of interest are total revenue or expenditures, whereas on other occasions we rely on per-student values. All data sources are explained under each figure and table, and some are also briefly explained in the Methodology.

The federal government seeks to use its limited but targeted funding to promote student achievement, foster educational excellence, and ensure equal access. The major federal agency channeling funding to school districts (sometimes through the states) is the U.S. Department of Education. 1

Figure A shows the percentage distribution of total revenue for U.S. public elementary and secondary schools for the 2017–2018 school year, on average. As illustrated, revenues collected from state and local sources are roughly equal (46.8% and 45.3%, respectively). Two other factors also stand out. First, revenue from property taxes accounts for more than one-third of total revenue (36.6 %). Second, federal funding plays a minimal role, providing less than 8% of total revenue (7.8%). As discussed later in the report, this heavy reliance on local funding is a major driver in the funding challenges districts face.

More than 90% of school funding comes from state and local sources : Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools by source of funds, 2017–2018

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

The data underlying the figure.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics’ Digest of Education Statistics (NCES 2020a).

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Key metrics reveal the four major financial barriers to an excellent, equitable education system 

Fully comprehending how school funding works and how it contributes to systemic problems requires drawing on key metrics and characteristics that define the education investments or education funding. Understanding these metrics is the first step toward designing a comprehensive solution.

The adequacy metric tells us that funding is inadequate

Adequacy, one of the most widely used school finance indicators, measures whether the amount raised and spent per student is sufficient to achieve a certain level of output (typically a benchmark of student performance or an educational outcome).

We use the adequacy data provided by Baker, Di Carlo, and Weber (2020). These authors, who use the School Finance Indicators Database, compare current education spending by poverty quintile with spending levels required for students to achieve national average test scores—typically accepted as an educationally meaningful benchmark. The authors’ estimates account for factors that could affect the cost of providing education, including student characteristics, labor-market costs (differences in costs given the regional cost of living), and district characteristics (larger districts for example may enjoy economics of scale).

Figure B reveals that spending is not nearly enough, on average, to provide students with an adequate education. As this figure illustrates, relative to the wealthiest districts, the highest-poverty districts need more than twice as much spending per student to provide an adequate education. As the figure also shows, the gaps between what is spent on each student and what would be required for those students to achieve at the national level widen as the level of poverty increases. Medium- and high-poverty districts are spending, respectively, $700 and $3,078 per student less than what would be required. For the highest-poverty districts, that gap is $5,135, meaning districts there are spending about 30% less than what would be required to deliver an adequate level of education to their students. (Conversely, the two low-poverty quintiles are spending more than they need to reach that benchmark, another indication that funds are being poorly allocated.)

U.S. education spending is inadequate : Per-pupil spending compared with estimated spending required to achieve national average test scores, by poverty quintile of school district, 2017

Notes: District poverty is measured as the percentage of children (ages 5–17) living in the school district with family incomes below the federal poverty line, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The figure shows how much is spent in each of the five types of districts and how much they would need to spend for students to achieve national average test scores.

Source: Adapted from The Adequacy and Fairness of State School Finance Systems , Second Edition (Baker, Di Carlo, and Weber 2020).

The equity metric tells us that funding is inequitable 

An equitable funding system ensures that, all else being equal, schools serving students with greater needs—whether for extra academic, socioemotional, health, or other supports—receive more resources and spend more to meet those needs than schools with a lower concentration of disadvantaged students. Across districts, states, and the country as a whole, this means allocating relatively more funding to districts serving larger shares of high-poverty communities than to wealthier ones. While our funding system does allocate additional funds based on need (e.g., to students officially designated as eligible for “special education” services under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and to children from low-income families through the federal Title I program), in practice, more funding overall goes to lower-needs districts than to those with high levels of student needs.

Figure C compares districts’ per-student revenues and expenditures by poverty level, and shows gaps relative to low-poverty districts. The figure is based on data from what was, when this research was conducted, the most recent version of the Local Education Agency Finance Survey (known as the F-33) (NCES-LEAFS, various years). As shown in the figure, on average, per-student revenue and spending in school districts serving wealthier households exceed revenue and spending in all other districts. In low-poverty districts (i.e., districts with a poverty rate in the bottom fourth of the poverty distribution), per-student revenues averaged $19,280 in the 2017–2018 school year, and per-student expenditures averaged $15,910. In the high-poverty districts (i.e., in the top fourth of the poverty distribution), per-student revenues were just $16,570, and per-student expenditures were $14,030. High-poverty districts raise $2,710 less in per-student revenue than the lowest–poverty school districts, reflecting a 14.1% revenue gap—meaning high-poverty districts receive 14.1% less in revenue. Per-student spending in high-poverty districts is $1,880 less than in low-poverty districts, an 11.8% gap. 2 In other words, rather than funding districts to address student needs, we are channeling fewer resources—about 14% less, per student—into districts with greater needs based on their student population.

Districts serving poorer students have less to spend on education than those serving wealthier students

: total per-student revenues by district poverty level, and revenue gaps relative to low-poverty districts, 2017–2018, : total per-student expenditures by district poverty level, and spending gaps relative to low-poverty districts, 2017–2018.

Notes: Amounts are in 2019–2020 dollars and rounded to the closest $10 and adjusted for each state’s cost of living. Low-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate (for children ages 5 through 17) is in the bottom fourth of the poverty distribution; high-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate is in the top fourth of the poverty distribution.

Extended notes: Sample includes districts serving elementary schools only, secondary schools only, or both; districts with nonmissing and nonzero numbers of students; and districts with nonmissing charter information. Amounts are in 2019–2020 dollars using the consumer price index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS CPI 2021) and rounded to the closest $10. Amounts are adjusted for each state’s cost of living using the historical Regional Price Parities (RPPs) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2021). Low-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate (for children ages 5 through 17) is in the bottom fourth of the poverty distribution; medium-low-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate (for children ages 5 through 17) is in the second fourth of the poverty distribution; medium-high-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate (for children ages 5 through 17) is in the third fourth of the poverty distribution; high-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate is in the top fourth of the poverty distribution. Amounts are unweighted across districts.

Sources: Authors’ analysis of 2017–2018 Local Education Agency Finance Survey (F-33) microdata from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES-LEAFS 2021) and Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Urban Institute 2021a).

Adequacy and equity are closely intertwined

In recent decades, researchers have explored challenges to both adequacy and equity in U.S. public education. For example, Baker and Corcoran (2012) analyzed the various policies that drive inequitable funding. Likewise, lawsuits that have challenged state funding systems have tended to focus on either the inadequacy or inequity of those schemes. 3

But in reality, especially given extensive variation across states and districts, the two are closely linked and interact with one another. At the state level, for example, apparently adequate levels of funding can mask disparities across districts that innately mean inadequate funding for many, or even most, districts within that state (Farrie and Schiarra 2021). 4

In addition, disparate levels of public investments in education are often made in a context that correlates positively with disparate levels of parents’ private investments in their children’s education and related support (Caucutt et al. 2020; Duncan and Murnane 2016; Kornrich 2016; Schneider, Hastings, and LaBriola 2018). Substantial research on income-based gaps in achievement demonstrates that large and growing wealth inequality plays a role. Parents at the top of the income or wealth ladders, who can and do pour extensive resources into their children’s human capital, constantly set a baseline of performance that can be hard for children and schools without such investment to attain (Reardon 2011; García and Weiss 2017). 5

The “effort” metric tells us that many states are underinvesting in education relative to their capacity

 “Effort” describes how generously each state funds its schools relative to its capacity to do so. Researchers measuring effort determine capacity to spend based on state gross domestic product (GDP), which can vary widely (just as wealthier neighborhoods can raise more revenues even with lower tax rates, states with higher GDP and thus greater revenue-raising capacity can attain higher revenue with a lower effort, i.e., generate more resources at a lower cost). The map ( Figure D ), reproduced from Farrie and Sciarra 2021, shows state funding effort from the 2017–2018 school year.

School funding ‘effort’ varies widely across states : Pre-K through 12th grade education revenues as a percentage of state GDP, 2017–2018

This interactive feature is not supported in this browser.

Please use a modern browser such as Chrome or Firefox to view the map.

• Click here to download Google Chrome.
• Click here to download Firefox.

Click here to view a limited version of the map.

Note: “Effort is measured as total state and local [education] revenue (including [revenue for] capital outlay and debt service, excluding all federal funds) divided by the state’s gross domestic product. GDP is the value of all goods and services produced by each state’s economy and is used here to represent the state’s economic capacity to raise funds for schools” (Farrie and Sciarra 2020).

Source: Adapted from Making the Grade 2020: How Fair is School Funding in Your State? (Farrie and Sciarra 2020).

As Farrie and Sciarra (2021) note, states fall naturally into four groups:

• High-effort, high-capacity: States such as Alaska, Connecticut, New York, and Wyoming are high- capacity states with high per-capita GDP, and they are also high-effort states: They use a larger-than-average share of their overall GDP to support pre-K–12 education, which generates high funding levels.
• High-effort, low-capacity : States such as Arkansas, South Carolina, and West Virginia have lower-than-average capacity, with low GDP per-capita, but they are high-effort states. Even with above- average efforts, they yield only average or below-average funding levels.
• Low-effort, high-capacity : States such as California, Delaware, and Washington are high-capacity states that exert low effort toward funding schools. If these states increased their effort even to the national average, they could significantly increase funding levels.
• Low-effort, low-capacity : States such as Arizona, Florida, and Idaho are low-capacity states that also make lower-than-average efforts to fund schools, generating very low funding levels.

Evidence shows that districts and schools lack the resources to cope with emergencies

As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, our subpar level of preparation to cope with emergencies or other unexpected needs reflects another aspect of underinvestment. As García and Weiss (2020) not about the COVID-19 pandemic, “Our public education system was not built, nor prepared, to cope with a situation like this—we lack the structures to sustain effective teaching and learning during the shutdown and to provide the safety net supports that many children receive in school.”

Whether due to lack of resources, planning, or other factors, districts, schools, and educators struggled to adapt to the pandemic’s requirements for teaching. Schools were unprepared not only to support learning but also to deliver the supports and services they were accustomed to providing, which go far beyond instruction (García and Weiss 2020). This lack of preparation was the result of both a lack of contingency planning as well as a failure to build up resources to be ready “to adequately address emergency needs and to compensate for the resources drained during the emergencies, as well as to afford the provision of flexible learning approaches to continue education” (García and Weiss 2021).

A lack of established contingency plans to ensure the provision of education in emergency and post-emergency situations, whether caused by pandemics, other natural disasters, or conflicts and wars (as examined by the education-in-emergencies research), prevents countries from being able to mitigate the negative consequences of these emergencies on children’s development and learning. The lack of contingency plans also leaves systems unprepared to help children handle the trauma and stress that come from the most serious events. This body of literature has also shown that access to education and services—and an equitable and compensatory allocation of them—helps reduce the damage that students experience during the crisis and beyond, since such emergencies carry long-term consequences (Anderson 2020; Özek 2020).

Public education’s over-reliance on local funding is a key factor behind the troubling funding metrics

The heavy reliance on local funding described above is at the core of the school finance problems. Extensive research has exposed the challenges associated with this unique American system for funding public schools. 6 The myriad factors that drive school funding—politics and political affiliation, state legislative and judicial decisions, property values, tax rates, and effort, among others—vary substantially from one community to another. Thus, it is not surprising that this system has contributed to institutionalizing inequities, especially in the absence of a strong federal effort to counter them.

It is well understood that the local sources of revenues on which school districts heavily rely are often distributed in a highly inequitable way. Revenues from property taxes, which make up a hefty share of local education revenues, innately favor wealthier communities, as these areas have a much larger capacity to raise funds based on higher property values despite their lower tax rates. 7 These higher property-tax revenues in wealthier areas lead to greater revenues for their districts’ schools, since property-tax revenues account for such a significant share of the total.

State and federal funding are insufficient to compensate for these locally driven inequities

State funding of public education is the largest budget line item for most states. 8 Along with federal funding, state funding is expected to make up for local funding disparities and gaps. 9 Federal funding, in particular through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is specifically designed to compensate low-income schools and districts for their lack of sufficient revenues to meet their students’ needs. 10 Similarly, state funding is intended to offset some of the disparities caused by the dependence on local revenues. However, in reality, state and federal sources do not provide enough to less-wealthy school districts to make up for the gap in funding at the local level, as shown in Figure E .

As the figure   shows, the U.S. systematically funds schools in wealthier areas at higher levels than those with higher rates of poverty, even after accounting for funding meant to remedy these gaps. On average, local property-tax funding per student is $5,260 lower in the poorest districts than in the wealthiest districts.

Federal and state revenues fail to offset the funding disparities caused by relying on local property tax revenues : How much more or less school districts of different poverty levels receive in revenues than low-poverty school districts receive, all and by revenue source, 2017–2018

Notes: Amounts are in 2019–2020 dollars, rounded to the closest $10, and adjusted for each state's cost of living. Low-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate for school-age children (children ages 5 through 17) is in the bottom fourth of the poverty distribution; high-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate is in the top fourth of the poverty distribution.

Extended notes: Sample includes districts serving elementary schools only, secondary schools only, or both; districts with nonmissing and nonzero numbers of students; and districts with nonmissing charter information. Amounts are in 2019–2020 dollars using the consumer price index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS-CPI 2021) and rounded to the closest $10. Amounts are adjusted for each state’s cost-of living using the historical regional Price Parities (RPPs) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2021). Low-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rate for school-age children (children ages 5 through 17) is in the bottom fourth of the poverty distribution for that group; medium-low-poverty districts are districts whose school-age children’s poverty rate is in the second fourth (25th–50th percentile); medium-high-poverty districts are districts whose school-age children’s poverty rate is in the third fourth (50th–75th percentile); in high-poverty districts, the rate is in the top fourth. Amounts are unweighted across districts.

Sources: 2017–2018 Local Education Agency Finance Survey (F-33) microdata from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES-LEAFS 2021) and Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Urban Institute 2021a).

While state revenues are a significant portion of funding, they only modestly counter the large locally based inequities. And while federal funding, by far the smallest source of revenue, is being deployed as intended (to reduce inequities), it inevitably falls short of compensating for a system grounded in highly inequitable local revenues as its principal source of funding. As such, although states provide their highest-poverty districts with $1,550 more per student than to their lowest-poverty districts, and federal sources provide their highest-poverty districts with $2,080 more per student than to their lowest-poverty districts, states and the federal government jointly compensate for only about half of the revenue gap for high-poverty districts (which receive a per-student average of $6,330 less in property tax and other local revenues). That large gap in local funding leaves the highest-poverty districts still $2,710 short per student relative to the lowest-poverty districts, reflecting the 14.1% revenue gap shown in Figure C. Even though high-poverty districts get more in federal and state dollars, they get so much less in property taxes that it still puts them in the negative category overall.

Disparities shortchange states’ (and districts’) ability to access and allocate the resources needed for effective education

Given the heavy reliance on highly varied local funding, it is no surprise that there is similarly significant variation across states with respect to almost every aspect of funding discussed here. Table 1 reports federal, state, and local funding for each state and for the District of Columbia, with local funding broken down into three categories.

Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds and by state : Share of each source in total revenue, 2017–2018 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics' Digest of Education Statistics (NCES 2020b). 

Nationally, in 2017–2018, local and state sources accounted for 45.3% and 46.8% of total revenue, respectively; just 7.8% comes from the federal government. However, these averages mask substantial variation in the shares of revenue apportioned by each source across states. Local revenue, for example, ranges from just 3.7% of total public-school revenue in Vermont and 18.2% in New Mexico, on the lower end, to a high of 63.4% in New Hampshire. The same is true with respect to state revenue. The state that contributes the smallest share to its education budget is New Hampshire at 31.3%, with Vermont contributing the largest share (89.9%). There is also quite a bit of variation in the share represented by federal funds—from just 4.1% in New Jersey to 15.9% in Alaska. (The cited values are highlighted in the table. We omit the District of Columbia and Hawaii from these rankings because of the unusual composition of their funding streams, but we provide their values in the table.)

As shown earlier in the discussion of the map in Figure E, there are also large disparities in funding effort—how generously each state funds its schools relative to its capacity to do so, based on state GDP. High-effort, high-capacity s tates such as Alaska, Connecticut, New York, and Wyoming use a larger-than-average share of their overall GDP to support pre-K–12 education and they generate high funding levels.

As a result of funding and effort variability across states, the levels of inequity and inadequacy across states also vary substantially (Baker, Di Carlo, and Weber 2020; Farrie and Sciarra 2021). Notably, funding variability translates into significant disparities in overall per-student revenue and per-student spending levels, as shown in Figures F and G . In Wyoming, for example, where effort is relatively high (4.36%; see Figure E) and there is a higher-than-average contribution of state funds to total revenue and a lower-than-average contribution of local funds to total revenue (56.8% and 36.8%, respectively, versus 46.8% and 45.3% averages across the U.S.), per-student revenue is among the highest of any state, nearly $21,000. In contrast, Arizona and North Carolina—which are among the lowest in effort in the country (2.23% and 2.28%, respectively), but where state funds account for 47.1% and 62.1% of the state’s total public education revenues, respectively, and local funds account for 40.4% and only 27.0%, respectively—collect about half of what Wyoming collects per student. (Data accounts for differences in states’ cost of living; see the appendix for more details on our methodology.)

Public education revenues vary widely across states : Per-student revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by state, 2017–2018

Note: Amounts are in 2019–2020 dollars using the consumer price index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS-CPI 2021) and rounded to the closest $10. Amounts are adjusted for each state’s cost-of living using the historical regional Price Parities (RPPs) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2021).

Source: National Center for Education Statistics’ Digest of Education Statistics (NCES 2020b).

Public education expenditures vary widely across states : Per-student expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools, by state, 2017–2018

Note: Amounts are in 2019–2020 dollars using the consumer price index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS-CPI 2021) and rounded to the closest $10. Amounts are adjusted for each state’s cost-of living using the historical Regional Price Parities (RPPs) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2021).

Source: National Center for Education Statistics’ Digest of Education Statistics (NCES 2020c).

These substantial disparities in all the school finance indicators, and in per-pupil spending and revenue across states, are mirrored in capacity and investment patterns across districts and, within them, individual schools.

As such, these systemic and persistent inequities play a decisive role in shaping children’s real school experiences. As Raikes and Darling-Hammond (2019) note, “As a country, we inadvertently instituted a school finance system similar to red-lining in its negative impact. Grow up in a rich neighborhood with a large property tax base? You get well-funded public schools. Grow up in a poor neighborhood? The opposite is true. The highest-spending districts in the United States spend nearly 10 times as much as the lowest-spending, with large differentials both across and within states (Raikes and Darling-Hammond 2019). In most states, children who live in low-income neighborhoods attend the most under-resourced schools” (see also Turner et al. 2016 for the underlying data). 11

These gaps in spending capacity touch every aspect of school functioning, including the capacity of teachers and staff to deliver effective instruction, and pose a huge barrier to the excellent school experience that each student should receive. In Pennsylvania, for example, where districts tend to rely heavily on local revenues to finance schools, per-pupil spending ranges dramatically. Indeed, in 2015, the U.S. Department of Education flagged the state as having the biggest school-spending gap of any state in the country (Behrman 2019). One illustrative example is in Allegheny County, on the western side of the state, where the suburban Wilkinsburg school district outside of Pittsburgh spent over $27,000 per student in the 2017–2018 school year, while the more rural South Allegheny school district spent just over $15,000, roughly 45% less.

With salaries being the largest line item in school budgets, these disparities substantially affect schools’ ability to hire the educators and other school personnel needed to provide effective instruction, the school leaders to guide instructional staff, and the staff needed to support administrative needs and to offer other services and extracurricular activities. As a result, these resources vary tremendously not only among states, but within them from one district, and even school, to another. 12 Overwhelming research exposes large disparities in access to counselors, librarians, and nurses, and in access to up-to-date technology and facilities. Facilities are literally crumbling in lower-resourced states and districts, painting a clear picture of the dire straits many schools face. (See, for example, Filardo, Vincent, and Sullivan 2019 regarding added consequences for low-income students and their teachers in schools that are too cold, full of dust or lead paint, and have broken windows or crumbling ceilings.)

Baker, Farrie, and Sciarra (2016) note that “increasing investments in schools is associated with greater access to resources as measured by staffing ratios, class sizes, and the competitiveness of teacher wages.” The findings presented here are backed by the extensive body of literature on the positive relationship between substantive and sustained state school finance reforms and improved student outcomes. Together, they make a strong case that state and federal policymakers can help boost outcomes and close achievement gaps by improving state finance systems to ensure equitable funding and improved access to resources for children from low-income families.

Economic downturns exacerbate the problems with our school finance system and, over time, cause cumulative damage to students and to the system

Recessions lead to depleted state and local budgets and, in turn, to cuts in education funding. Trends since the Great Recession demonstrate that it can take a long time to restore education budgets and that our practice of balancing budgets on the backs of schoolchildren is an unwise and, ultimately, costly one in terms of educational and societal outcomes. As we show in Figure H , reductions in revenue for public education often outlast the official length of the recession, lasting much longer than the point when state and local budgets have returned to pre-recession trajectories in other areas of spending. In addition, a poor allocation of resources across high- and low-poverty districts disproportionately harms students in the highest-poverty districts relative to their peers in better-off districts, compounding the existing challenges described above and impeding their recovery.

It took the United States nearly a decade to restore the national per-student revenue to its pre-recession (2007–2008) school-year levels. Figure H shows national trends in revenue per student, by source (federal, state, and local), from the onset of the Great Recession through 2017–2018. 13

Education revenues fell sharply after 2008 (and did not return to pre-recession levels for about eight years) : Change in per-student revenue relative to 2007–2008, by source (inflation adjusted)

Note: The chart shows change in revenue per student for public elementary and secondary schools compared with 2007–2008. Amounts are in 2019–2020 dollars and rounded to the closest $10 using the consumer price index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS-CPI 2021). The Local line is all local sources, including property tax revenues.

Per-student state revenue fell precipitously between 2007–2008 and 2012–2013—it was down nearly $900 at the low point. While revenue from property taxes did not decrease, on average, other local revenues fell by $160 by 2011–20121, only recovering to 2007–2008 levels in 2014–2015. Federal funding for schools, together with the additional recovery funds targeted to education through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), provided an initial and critical counterbalance to these reductions; in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011, districts were receiving slightly over $600 more per student from the federal government than they were before the recession.

The peak in federal revenue is also visible in Figure I , which depicts the distribution of funding by sources by year . Total federal funds accounted for 12.7% of total revenue in 2009–2010, compared with just 8.2% in 2007–2008, an increase of over 50%. (Note that this increase was made larger by the reduced total amounts of revenues, i.e., it constituted a greater share of a smaller whole).

Importance of federal funding for education increased in the aftermath of the Great Recession : Share of total education revenue by source, 2007–2008 to 2017–2018

Source: National Center for Education Statistics' Digest of Education Statistics (NCES 2020a).

While these federal investments provided a critical boost by temporarily upholding education funding, our analyses suggest an opportunity to shorten the slow recovery to pre-recession levels was lost. Just as they effectively operated during the recession, it is likely that larger and more sustained federal investments would have better assisted the students, schools, and communities that suffered major setbacks due to the Great Recession. We come back to this idea in sections below.

In keeping with the discussion on broad funding disparities by state, the road to recovery from the Great Recession also varies across states and districts, with some still lagging from the Great Recession as they struggled with the COVID-19 crisis.

Research demonstrates that well after the end of the Great Recession, a significant number of states were still funding their public schools at lower levels than before the recession. As late as 2016, for example, per-student funding in 24 states—including half of the states with over a million enrolled students—was still below pre-recession levels (Leachman and Figueroa 2019). For some of these states, the failure to return to prior funding levels was driven by the lack of recovery of the per-student state revenue (for example, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma). In some of the “deepest-cutting states — including Arizona, North Carolina, and Oklahoma,” note Leachman and Figueroa, the state governments made significant cuts to income tax rates, “making it much more difficult for their school funding to recover from cuts they imposed after the last recession hit.” In other states, lack of local revenue was the culprit (as in Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, and Vermont, for example). Finally, in some of these states, this shortfall fell on top of a rapidly growing student population (i.e., even had their total revenues recovered to pre-recession levels, they would still fall far behind on a per-student basis). Exploring the various drivers of these trends and their variation across states is beyond the scope of this report but would undoubtedly be fruitful. 14

Putting aside state trends and underlying causes, a focus on school districts reveals a strong correlation between poverty rates and education funding recovery. The following figures show the trends over time in total per-student revenue and spending by school district poverty levels. As we see, high-poverty districts and their students experienced both the biggest shortfalls and the most sluggish recoveries.

Figure J shows that, as discussed above, districts with relatively small shares of low-income students (low-poverty districts) never saw revenues per student fall below pre–Great Recession levels, adjusted for inflation and state cost of living. By contrast, the one-fourth of districts with the largest share of students from poor families (high-poverty districts) stayed below their pre–Great Recession level of per-student revenues long after recovery was in full swing, through 2015–2016. In keeping with that spectrum, the medium-high poverty districts did recover to their pre-recession per-student revenue levels, but not until 2014–2015.

The drop in education revenues after 2007–2008 was greater in high-poverty districts : Change in total per-student revenue compared with 2007–2008, by district poverty level (adjusted for inflation and state cost of living)

Sources: 2007–2008 to 2017–2018 Local Education Agency Finance Survey (F-33) microdata from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES-LEAFS 2021) and Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Urban Institute 2021a).

Figure K tells a similar story regarding trends in per-student expenditure across school districts. As such, it took until 2017–2018, a decade after the Great Recession had first hit, for high-poverty school districts to surpass their pre-recession levels, though they still lagged far behind their wealthier counterpart districts. Moreover, though not shown in this graph, for high-poverty districts, getting back to pre-recession status means catching up to revenue and spending levels that were lower than in the wealthier districts to begin with. (Figure C earlier in the report illustrates the gaps between high- and low-poverty districts in 2017–2018.)

The drop in education expenditures after 2007–2008 was greater in high-poverty districts : Change in total per-student expenditures compared with 2007–2008, by district poverty (adjusted for inflation and state cost-of living)

Notes:  Amounts are in 2019–2020 dollars, rounded to the closest $10, and adjusted for each state's cost of living. Low-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rates (for children ages 5 through 17) are in the bottom fourth of the poverty distribution; high-poverty districts are districts whose poverty rates are in the top fourth of the poverty distribution.

Balancing budgets on the backs of children during a recession has serious consequences

Inadequate, inequitable funding relegates poor children to attend under-resourced schools even in good economic times, and to suffer disproportionately during and in the aftermath of economic downturns. We have for far too long been balancing recession-depleted budgets on the backs of schoolchildren, in particular low-income children and children of color. This not only hurts these children immediately, but severely limits their prospects as adults. As such, this practice has broader implications for the future of the country, both economically and regarding the strength of our societal fabric, given that the students of today are the workers and the citizens of tomorrow.

Indeed, these negative patterns are just the first indications of a cascade of consequences that result from funding cuts. This section describes those consequences and their flip side, which is more frequently the focus of education researchers—the positive effects of increased investment. First, we review the literature demonstrating the impacts of various levels of funding on student outcomes. Next, we point to analyses that have shown some other associated school problems (education employment, class size, and student performance, among others) that were contemporaneous with the declines in spending and revenue. Thought it is difficult to quantify the exact and independent impact of the funding cuts on these factors, the strong correlations suggest that they are related.

Substantial evidence points to the positive effects of higher spending on both short- and long- term student outcomes, as well as on schools overall and on adult outcomes (Jackson and Mackevicius 2021; Jackson, Johnson, and Persico 2016; Gibbons, McNally, and Viarengo 2018; Hyman 2017; Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach 2018; Jackson 2018; Jackson, Wigger, and Xiong 2020; Baker 2018). This body of research also provides evidence that the impact of school spending differs by students’ family income (Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach 2018; Jackson, Johnson, and Persico 2016). And, though less has been studied in this specific area, the evidence also shows that a misallocation of resources and/or a decrease in spending has a negative influence on student outcomes, as well as on some teacher outcomes (Jackson, Wigger, and Xiong 2020; Greaves and Sibieta 2019). 15

A recent summary of the literature provides compelling evidence of the effects of school spending on test scores and educational attainment. Based on 31 studies that provide reliable causal estimates, Jackson and Mackevicius (2021) find that, on average, a $1,000 increase in per-pupil public school spending for four years increases test scores by 0.044 percentage points, high school graduation by 2.1 percentage points, and college-going by 3.9 percentage points. Interestingly, the authors explain that “when benchmarked against other interventions, test score impacts are much smaller than those on educational attainment—suggesting that test-score impacts understate the value of school spending.” Consistent with a cumulative effect, the educational attainment impacts are larger after more years of exposure to the spending increase, and average impacts are similar across a wide range of baseline spending levels, indicating little evidence of diminishing marginal returns at current spending levels.

Other research suggests that the effect of spending is greater on disadvantaged students. Bradbury (2021) investigates “how specific state and local funding sources and allocation methods (redistributive extent, formula types) relate to students’ test scores and, especially, to test-score gaps across races and between students who are not economically disadvantaged and those who are.” Her findings suggest that statewide per-student school aid has no relationship with test-score gaps in school districts, but that the progressivity of the state’s school-aid distribution is associated with smaller test-score gaps in high-poverty districts. 16

Other studies further affirm the implications of equity-specific funding decisions. Jackson, Johnson, and Persico’s (2016) study assesses the impacts on a range of student and adult outcomes of a series of court-mandated school finance reforms that took place in the 1970s and 1980s. Linking information on the reforms to administrative data about the children who attended the schools, the authors found that the increase in school funding was associated with slight increases in years of educational attainment, and with higher adult wages and reduced odds of adult poverty, as well as with improvements to schools themselves—increased teacher salaries, reduced student-to-teacher ratios, higher school quality, and even longer school years (Jackson, Johnson, and Persico 2016). Specifically, a 10% increase in per-pupil spending each year for all 12 years of public schooling leads to 0.27 more completed years of education, 7.25% higher wages, and a 3.67 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty. As with the other studies, the benefits from increased funding are much greater for children from low-income families: 0.44 years of educational attainment and wages that are 9.5% higher.

In another study drawing on data from post-1990 school finance reforms that increased public-school funding in some states, Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (2018) estimate the impact of both absolute and relative spending on achievement in low-income school districts, as measured by National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data. 17 They find that the reforms increase the achievement of students in these districts, phasing in gradually over the years following the increase in spending/adequacy. While the measures employed to estimate the impact tend to be technical, the authors emphasize that this “implied effect of school resources on educational achievement is large.” 18 Similar adequacy-related reforms that resulted from court mandates, rather than state legislative decisions, prompted significant increases in graduation rates (Candelaria and Shores 2019).

Conversely, research shows that both the reallocation of resources and/or a decrease in spending have a negative influence on both teacher and student outcomes. Jackson, Wigger, and Xiong (2020) find that the cuts to per-pupil spending that occurred during the Great Recession reduced test scores and college enrollment, particularly for children in poor neighborhoods. Shores and Steinberg (2017) reaffirm these findings, noting that the Great Recession negatively affected math and English language arts (ELA) achievement of all students in grades 3–8, but that this “recessionary effect” was concentrated among school districts serving both more economically disadvantaged students and students of color. Greaves and Sibieta (2019) find that changes that required districts to pay teachers following higher salary scales, but that provided no additional funding to implement the requirements, did lead to increased pay for teachers as intended, but at the expense of cuts to other noninstructional spending of about 4%, with no net effects on student attainment. That is, reallocating resources across functions, without increasing the overall levels, did not improve outcomes.

Other studies explore disappointing trends across multiple education parameters during the decade preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, including teacher employment, class size, aggregate student performance, and performance gaps by socioeconomic status and/or racial/ethnic background. Several analyses show that recession-led school funding cuts were contemporaneous with significant reductions of teacher employment. The number of teachers in the United States public-school system reached its highest point in 2008, and then dropped significantly between 2008 and 2010 because of the recession (Gould 2017; Gould 2019; Berry and Shields 2017). Evans, Schwab, and Wagner (2019) estimated a decrease in total employment in public schools of 294,700 from the start of the recession until January 2013. Gould (2019) estimated that, in the fall of 2019, there were still 60,000 fewer public education jobs than there had been before the recession began in 2007 and that, if the number of teachers had kept up proportionately with growing student enrollment over that period, the shortfall in public education jobs would be greater than 300,000.

Related to these challenges, in the aftermath of the Great Recession through the 2015–2016 school year, schools’ struggles to staff themselves increased sharply. García and Weiss (2019) showed that the share of schools that were trying to fill a vacancy but could not do so tripled from the 2011–2012 to the 2015–2016 school year (increasing from 3.1% to 9.4% of schools in that situation), and the share of schools that reported finding it very difficult to fill a vacancy nearly doubled (from 19.7% to 36.2%). 19

Although class size, and the closely related metric of student-to-teacher ratios, have declined over the long term, they are higher, on average, in 2020 than they were in 2005 (the closest data point prior to the Great Recession) in 29 out of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia (NCES 2020d; Hussar and Bailey 2020). (See Mishel and Rothstein 2003 and Schanzenbach 2020 for a recent review of the influence of class size on achievement.)

Understanding overall trends in student performance over this period helps to put the impacts of trends in these other metrics in context. We have cited research that links school finance trends and educational outcomes in the aftermath of the Great Recession, but it is worth describing what the trends in student performance looked like across the country. It should not be surprising that scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the most reliable indicator over time of how much students are learning, show stagnant performance in math and reading for both fourth- and eighth-graders between 2009 and 2019 (NAGB 2019). As Sandy Kress, who served as President George W. Bush’s education advisor, commented, “The nation has gone nowhere in the last ten years. It’s truly been a lost decade [and] [t]he only group to experience more than marginal gains in recent years has been students in the top 10th percentile” (Chingos et al. 2019).

Gains (both absolute and relative) vary by students’ background, with multiple trends visible. Carnoy and García’s 2017 research on achievement gaps between racial/ethnic groups shows that Black–white and Hispanic–white student achievement gaps have continued to narrow over the last two decades, and also that Asian students were widening the gap ahead of white students in both math and reading achievement. At the same time, Hispanic and Asian students who are English language learners (ELLs) are falling further behind white students in mathematics and reading achievement, and gaps between higher- and lower-income students persist, with some changes that vary by subject and grade. During the decade of stagnation, however, in keeping with trends in per-pupil investments over this period, these trends widened existing inequities. As National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Associate Commissioner Peggy Carr soberly notes, “Compared to a decade ago, we see that lower-achieving students made score declines in all of the assessments, while higher-performing students made score gains” (Danilova 2018).

Finally, we have also seen marked changes in the student body composition that have implications for these trends going forward. The proportion of low-income students in U.S. schools has increased rapidly in recent decades, as has the share of students of color (NCES 2020e; Carnoy and García 2017). A student’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status also affects the student’s odds of ending up in a high-poverty school or a school with a high share of students of color. For example, Black and Hispanic students who are not poor are much more likely than white or Asian students who are low income to be enrolled in high-poverty schools (Carnoy and García 2017).

All of these changes point to the need for increased resources across the board, and especially in schools serving the highest-needs students. As we revisit education funding in the aftermath of the pandemic-induced recession, the new structure must make greater investments to ensure the equitable provision of education and associated supports not only in stable times but also in the context of substantial disruptions and crises (García and Weiss 2021). As the analysis above makes clear, neither equity not adequacy—and, thus, excellence in public education—will ever be possible as long as local revenues play such a central role, and as long as states are the primary vehicle to address those disparities. While we leave it to policymakers to design the specifics of this public-good investment, we emphasize that the benchmarks we should reach to determine that those investments are stable, sufficient, and equitable should reflect meaningful, consistent advances for the highest-poverty schools and schools serving students of color. In other words, when the impacts of recessions no longer fall on the backs of our most vulnerable children, we will know that we are moving in the right direction.

Public education funding could also be deployed quickly to boost the economy and serve as an automatic stabilizer

The practice of cutting school funding during recessions is not only bad for students and teachers but also hurts the economy overall. The education sector has the potential to help stabilize the economy during downturns, but historically, our policy responses have failed to provide the necessary investment, as discussed in this report.

Up to this point, we have shown the characteristics, dynamics, and consequences of the existing education funding system. We have emphasized that fixing the system’s problems and achieving an excellent, equitable, robust, and stable public education system requires more funding —not just a reshuffling of existing funding. We have presented evidence indicating the need for a significantly larger contribution to the system from the federal government on a permanent basis. We have also demonstrated that targeting additional funds to schools during the Great Recession—via ARRA funds in particular— helped offset the large cuts schools experienced due to state and local shortfalls. As stated by Evans, Schwab, and Wagner (2019), “[…] the federal government’s efforts to shield education from some of the worst effects of the recession achieved their major goal.” Based on the observed trends, we considered whether even more sustained federal investments would have better assisted the students, schools, and communities that suffered major setbacks due to the Great Recession.

There is another reason for both larger investments and a more robust federal role when state and local budgets experience shortfalls due to economic downturns: School funding can be part of the countercyclical public-spending programs that help the economy recover. While policymakers and economists have long recognized the need for, and the effectiveness of, such automatic stabilizers (programs that pump public spending into the economy just when overall spending is declining), they have not traditionally placed public education spending in this category—yet it belongs there. 20 Federal funding directed toward schools during and in the aftermath of economic downturns can further boost the economy, thereby jump-starting economic recoveries.

Stable, sufficient, and equitable education funding would give schools and districts the resources and flexibility to adapt to challenges that they need but have not had during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, automatic stabilization of public education protects students and school systems against depleted school budgets during recessions and volatile business cycles (Evans, Schwab, and Wagner 2019; Allegretto, García, and Weiss 2021). In addition to averting the harms to students and teachers described above, countercyclical investments would keep the public education workforce employed. The teachers, nurses, counselors, librarians, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and others who work in public schools made up 53.2% of all state and local public-sector workers in 2019—accounting for nearly 7.0% of total U.S. employment. 21 School staff are also family and community members whose spending ripples through their local economies (known as the multiplier effect). Cuts to education revenues and employment thus also affect local communities more broadly, and retrenchment of spending acts as a type of reverse multiplier, resulting in a vicious downward cycle.

Federally provided countercyclical fiscal spending on public education set up to kick in based on defined triggers—akin to an expansion of unemployment benefits that kicks in when certain unemployment targets are reached—would have significant “bang-for-your-buck” multiplier effects. Such automatic spending constitutes smart investment that upholds public education while giving the overall economy a significant boost. Analyzing then President-elect Biden’s American Rescue Plan, which included public education spending, Zandi and Yaros (2021) reported a 1.34 fiscal multiplier for state and local government spending (the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law in March 2021).

Because the federal government already provides substantial support to state and local governments in such times, bolstering and further targeting that support in a defined and concerted manner would entail a relatively light lift. Despite some challenges, several programs of this nature have been shown to meet their goals in their given policy areas. For example, the federal unemployment insurance (UI) and food stamps (SNAP) 22 programs are often cited as having demonstrably positive outcomes when the federal government increases their funding. Both have been heavily criticized for their structural flaws and lack of sufficient resource (Bivens et al. 2021). However, through prior recessions and the pandemic, data illustrate that UI and SNAP nonetheless prevented millions of people from falling into, or deeper into, poverty, as well as averted hunger and evictions. The CARES Act’s first allotment of the Economic Impact Payments and expanded UI benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic kept 13.2 million people out of poverty (Zipperer 2020). 23 The Bureau of Economic Analysis broke out the effects of selected pandemic response programs on personal income, illustrating just how heavily Americans leaned on these benefits through the pandemic. In June 2020, UI payments accounted for 15.6% of all wages and salaries in the U.S (BEA 2020). By contrast, just prior to the pandemic UI benefits were negligible in comparison—just 0.27% of wages and salaries overall in February 2020.

We propose that policymakers create a program for funding education during downturns that is of adequate magnitude and provides immediate, sufficiently large, and sustained relief as needed.

In order to provide an immediate response, the system must have the capacity to adapt to emergencies; a key way to ensure that is to specify ahead of time the automatic triggers that prompt launching the contingency plans. 24 To clarify, we are not suggesting that public education spending be treated exactly like food stamps or unemployment insurance benefits—i.e., that states amass reserves for a “rainy day” or that reserves be built up during nonrecessionary periods. Rather, we are pointing to the economic benefits of an education system that is robustly, stably, and consistently funded throughout economic ups and downs, ensuring that it also has the resources to withstand the downturns and the flexibility to adapt. And we are recommending that Congress establish a program that kicks in when needed, rather than waiting until a crisis and coming together to pass a large, responsive bill, which requires political negotiation and can thus take a lot of time.

Sufficiently large investments imply that the spending numbers are adequate to the size of the problem. As we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, the various public programs—even with all their flaws—have been critical to preventing a much worse disaster than the one we have experienced. 25

Finally, regarding sustained assistance, it was clear that relief and recovery spending fell far short in response to the Great Recession and was cut off too soon; it took 6.2 years to recoup the jobs lost and nearly eight years for the unemployment rate to get back to its pre-recession rate of 5%. And unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic workers took much longer to return to pre-recession levels (Allegretto 2016). In education, as shown before, it was not until the 2014–2015 school year that districts’ per-student revenue, on average, recovered to 2007–2008 levels nationally—and recovery took even longer for high-poverty districts.

In sum, while the purpose of this study is not to offer guidance on how to best design a public education automatic-stabilization program, we do argue that such a program would help public education during downturns, and provide a boost to the overall economy. At later stages, proof-of-concept designs such as Medicaid and transportation grants, and some of the existing large-scale public programs already mentioned, could be a useful place to continue the discussion. Identifying best practices—in program design, financing, and implementation in the United States and elsewhere—would help to conceive a strategy.

Conclusions and next steps

For too long in this country, we have normalized the practice of underinvesting in education while expecting that schools would still function well (or at least moderately well). We have also accepted the disproportionate burden that economic recessions place on public schools and students. These norms are very costly—to individuals and to society—and they shortchange our country’s potential.

As the data and research show, this approach is backward. If we are to have a chance of providing all students in the United States with an excellent education we must  build a strong foundation—one with sufficient, adequate, and equitable funding of public schools in practice, not just in theory. Ensuring broad adequacy and equity will require increased federal investment (to more fully complement a system that relies heavily on nonfederal sources). Moreover, federal provisions that provide for automatic boosts to education spending during downturns is critical. Our education system can and should include a countercyclical designed to help stabilize the economy when it is contracting—benefiting schools and communities.

Were we to truly acknowledge the benefits, it would be hard to argue politically against making these investments a reality. Here again the data are edifying: Extensive research indicates that a stable and consistent funding system with a much higher level of investment would generate large economic and social returns. 26

An increased federal investment to ensure sufficient, adequate, and equitable funding of public schools has an additional benefit: It could serve as another tool in our toolbox for faster, broader, and more equitable recoveries from recessions. Boosting school funding during downturns could boost the wider economy—and disproportionately benefit the low-income communities that tend to be hit hardest in hard economic times.

This proposal requires jettisoning the tendency to pit public policy areas against one another for resources, and to glamorize the purportedly efficient notion of “doing more with less.” The latter, often used to justify education budget cuts, actually entails a misguided denial of the need for resources and of the inevitable damage that ensues when those resources fall short—or fail to exist at all.

We are not arguing that increased access to federal resources alone will address all the issues outlined above. Simply throwing money at the goal of providing an excellent education equitably to all children won’t achieve it; we need to make the right investments. 27

In addition, it is also important to distinguish funding from decision-making. While the federal government is best positioned to ensure broadly adequate and equitable education funding nationwide, it is not necessarily well suited to make decisions about policy, practice, and implementation. Evidence should guide how decision-making is allocated across the federal, state, and local levels. 28

Advancing this proposal also requires that we dislodge the conversation from where it has been stuck for at least the past half-century—namely on whether the resources exist. They do. What we need to ask now is how to make those resources available, and how to deploy them to ensure that all students have the opportunities to learn, develop, and achieve their full potential—and that these opportunities are available during both ordinary and recessionary times.

About the authors

Sylvia Allegretto is a research associate with the Economic Policy Institute. She worked for 15 years at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, where she co-founded the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics (CWED). She received her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Emma García is an economist specializing in the economics of education and education policy. She developed this study while she was at the Economic Policy Institute (2013-2021). She is now a senior researcher at the Learning Policy Institute. García received her Ph.D. in economics and education from Columbia University’s Teachers College.

Elaine Weiss is the Policy Director at the National Academy of Social Insurance, and former National Coordinator of the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education at the Economic Policy Institute (2011-2018). She received her B.A. in Political Science from the University of Maryland, J.D. from Harvard Law School, and Ph.D. in public policy from the George Washington University.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to EPI Publications Director Lora Engdahl for having edited this report and for her help shepherding it to its release. The authors benefited from Ajay Srikanth’s guidance on school finance data sources at the beginning of the project. The authors appreciate EPI’s support of this project, EPI Research Assistant Daniel Perez for his assistance with the tables and figures, EPI Editor Krista Faries for her usual thoughtful insights, and EPI’s communications staff for their assistance with the production and dissemination of this study.

Appendix: Notes on the data sources and the analyses

We construct our own district-level longitudinal data set using information from three different sources:

• the National Center for Education Statistics’s School District Finance Survey (F-33, Local Education Agency Finance Survey microdata from NCES 2007–2008 to 2017–2018 (NCES-LEAFS 2021)
• the United States’ Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program (for districts 2007–2018, from the Urban Institute’s Education Data Portal (Urban Institute 2021a) 29
• Stanford Education Data Archive (SEDA) Version 4.0 covariates file (Reardon et al. 2021).

The School District Finance Survey (F-33) is the source for revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary school districts in the country. The F-33 is a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD) and consists of local education agencies (LEA)-level finance data submitted annually to the U.S. Census Bureau by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The entire universe of LEAs in each school year and in each state plus D.C. are included. The F-33 report includes the following types of school district finance data: revenue, current expenditure, and capital outlay expenditure totals; revenues by source; current expenditures by function and object; and revenues and current expenditures per pupil.

We use the annual data from 12 school years from 2006–2007 until 2017–2018 (the most recent available data at the time of development of this research was the data for 2017-2018, last accessed in March 2021 (NCES-LEAFS 2021) , see https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/files.asp#Fiscal:1,LevelId:5,Page:1 for updates).

We use the following variables from NCES CCD 2020:

• Total Revenue (TOTALREV)
• Total Federal Revenue (TFEDREV)
• Total State Revenue (TSTREV)
• Local Rev – Property Taxes (T06)
• Fall Membership (V33 and MEMBERSCH if V33 is missing)
• Total Current Expenditures for Elementary/Secondary Education (TCURELSC) 30

We calculate revenues (total and by source) and current expenditures in per-student terms.

For findings expressed “in constant 2019 – 2020 dollars,” all spending and revenue data are expressed in dollars corresponding with the 2019–2020 school year (average July–June as explained by NCES 2019), using the consumer price index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS-CPI 2021).

For findings involving states’ cost-of-living-adjusted (RPPs), we account for differences in the cost-of-living across states by using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s (BEA’s) Regional Price Parities (BEA 2021). 31

For analyzing metrics and outcomes by school poverty level, we link the school finance information with the poverty information.

Our preferred poverty data source is the United States Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program for districts for school years spanning 2007–2018, which we collect from the Urban Institute’s Education Data Portal (Urban Institute 2021a). Census SAIPE district poverty data are available for the period 2007–2008 through 2017–2018 (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). The variable of interest is the poverty rate for children ages 5–17 in the district (ratio between poor children and total children in that age group). They are originally available as yearly data. To proxy for the school year (July–June) data, for a given school year, we take the average between the fall year-1 and the spring year.

We also use two other poverty data sources, which are linked to the F-33 data in sequential steps, for the following two purposes: (a) to offer sensitivity analyses of the results using alternative sources of data; and (b) to use the maximum number of observations possible, in cases in which some information is missing in one source but available in others.

Our second-preferred poverty data are SEDA’s shares of free and reduced price lunch eligible students in grades 3–8 in the districts (Reardon et al. 2021). This information is available in the covariates’ file, and it is available starting in school year 2008–2009 (which is least preferred because it is after the beginning of the Great Recession). 32

As an additional source checked in our sensitivity analyses, we use the county-level information from the Census, available (by year) at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/saipe/data/datasets.html (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). The information is equivalent to the district-level information, but at the county level. For this study, we use the data in the same manner (turning the year estimates into school-year equivalent estimates, etc.).

We perform the analyses using the different sources independently, plus one more in which we combine the three sources, when one is missing but the other is not (i.e., we define a poverty-all variable that “combines” sources: If Census’s SAIPE’s district poverty data are missing, SEDA’s district poverty data are used; for districts missing on both, Census’s SAIPE’s county poverty data are used).

In each case, we calculate the poverty quartiles each year by dividing the poverty variable(s) into four quartiles. 33 Low-poverty districts are districts with a poverty rate for children ages 5–17 in the first quartile of the poverty distribution. Medium-low-poverty districts are districts with a poverty rate for children ages 5–17 in the second quartile of the poverty distribution. Medium-high-poverty districts are districts with a poverty rate for children ages 5–17 in the third quartile of the poverty distribution. High-poverty districts are districts with a poverty rate for children ages 5–17 in the fourth (top) quartile of the poverty distribution.

A note about analytic samples and weights: As the school finance variables of interest are in per-student terms, districts with nonmissing and nonzero numbers of students are kept in our sample. In our preferred sample, we also restrict the analyses to observations from districts serving elementary schools only, secondary schools only, or both, 34 and to districts with charter information nonmissing. Results using the full number of observations (unrestricted sample) are available upon request.

A note about the final sensitivity analysis: Following the nature of F33 and the weights available in the surveys, our unit of analysis is the district, and we present unweighted averages across districts. Sensitivity analyses are also available using the student population in the district to compute weighted averages across the districts, upon request.

A note about methods: The analyses presented in this report are descriptive in nature. We are interested in providing a description of the trends in revenues and expenditures over time, by state, and by district poverty level. We produce updated estimates for the main school finance indicators and we look at trends in the main variables (per-student revenue and spending) during recessions to see the potential of a solid response from the system to respond, counter, and recover from economic recessions.

We conducted multiple sensitivity analyses in our attempt to verify that the data that we provide are not sensitive to data sources or data procedures, as well as to understand possible ways to further expand this research. Each data source offers significant advantages, but there is no source that can be used for all the purposes intended. Additionally, the evidence improves if we use multiple sources. We are confident the main findings hold and are not driven by extraneous factors. We do not use regression analyses in this version of the report.

1. In addition to the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, which funds the Head Start program for young children, and the Department of Agriculture, which funds the School Lunch (meals) Program are also part of the agencies that support programs or functions in education.

2. We use current expenditures instead of total expenditures when comparing education spending between states or across districts, as suggested by the agency that provides the data, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This approach recognizes that current expenditures exclude expenditures for capital outlay, “which tend to have dramatic increases and decreases from year to year.” Also, “the current expenditures commonly reported are for public elementary and secondary education only. Many school districts also support community services, adult education, private education, and other programs, which are included in total expenditures. These programs and the extent to which they are funded by school districts vary greatly both across and within states and school districts.” See NCES 2008.

3. See the New Yorkers for Students’ Educational Rights backgrounder (NYSER n.d.) on Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. (CFE) v. State of New York , 8 N.Y.3d 14 (2006) and Srikanth et al. 2020. Michael A. Rebell, one of the most prominent school funding litigators in the country, was co-counsel for the plaintiffs in CFE v. New Yor k , a school funding “adequacy” lawsuit that claimed that the State of New York violated the constitutional rights of New York City students by failing to adequately fund the city’s public schools (NYSER n.d.). See also Sciarra and Dingerson 2021.

4. Since 2010, the Education Law Center (ELC), housed at Rutgers University, produces report cards that ask Is School Funding Fair? (using the data collected annually, some of which we use in our analyses below). To paraphrase their response, “Generally, no.” As the authors emphasize, “The hallmark of a fair school funding system is that it delivers more funding to educate students in high-poverty districts [since] states providing equal or less funding to high-poverty districts are shortchanging the students most in need and at risk of academic failure” (Farrie and Schiarra 2021).

5. Moreover, these wealth-based disparities are mirrored in and compounded by race/ethnicity-based gaps. The Education Trust uses data to report on disparities by both income/poverty level and race/ethnicity. As the Education Trust’s report on funding gaps in 2018 reveals, “School districts serving the largest populations of Black, Latino, or American Indian students receive roughly $1,800, or 13 percent, less per student in state and local funding than those serving the fewest students of color. This may seem like an insignificant amount, but it adds up. For a school district with 5,000 students, a gap of $1,800 per student means a shortage of $9 million per year ” (Morgan and Amerikaner 2018, emphasis added).

6. Our peer Western nations view public schools as more of a national responsibility and provide resources accordingly. For example, Germany has a heavily state-based school system, France has a hybrid local–federal system in which the central government pays teachers’ salaries, and Finland’s national government takes virtually full responsibility for public education.

7. As a large study by Berry (2021) reveals, higher-income areas are taxed, on average, at just half the rate of their lower-income counterparts. Not only does this lead to structurally inequitable funding for schools, it exacts a harder toll on the residents who are least able to afford it—who pay double the taxes of their wealthier peers on much lower incomes. And, as Srikanth (2021) notes, “The study reveals structural racism at work.”

8. Funding for K–12 (21.5%) and higher education (9.4%) combined make up the largest segment of most state budgets. Spending on K–12 education alone is barely second in public budgets to public welfare spending (22.4%) (Urban Institute 2021b).

9. Bradbury (2021) explains that “the largest portion of state aid to local school districts is typically provided on a per-student basis through a ‘foundation,’ ‘power-equalizing,’ ‘flat grant,’ or ‘tiered’ program.…In addition, some states include cost adjustments in their formulas. Key attributes on which states base such cost adjustments are student poverty, English language facility, and special education or disability status.”

10. As part of his War on Poverty, which recognized the impacts of poverty on children’s well-being and the nation’s future, President Lyndon Johnson advanced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. This flagship federal legislation, which has since been reauthorized multiple times and whose current iteration is the Every Student Succeeds Act, is designed principally to channel resources to schools serving low-income students. However, Title I, the largest section of ESEA, was never enough to make up for the inequities created by the local–state funding system (see Gamson, McDermott, and Reed 2015).

11. This pattern isn’t at all “inadvertent,” but is a built-in feature that is part of a pattern of systemic racism and related classism that merits attention in itself. See, for example Sosina and Weathers 2019.

12. For example, in 2018–2019, average teacher salaries ranged from less than $46,000 in Mississippi to roughly $86,000 in New York (NEA 2020). However, within New York (according to 2017 data), they ranged from as low as $55,976 in the low-income Finger Lakes region in the northern part of the state to nearly twice as high, $110,000, in the wealthiest Long Island districts (Malatras and Simons 2019).

13. We note that the Great Recession started as the 2007–2008 school year was underway, so we are using the term “pre-recession level” flexibly and assuming school budgets do not immediately respond to the economic recession.

14. See Leachman, Masterson, and Figueroa 2017; Leachman and Figueroa 2019; Baker 2018; and Allegretto 2020 for some more examples.

15. Note that we are not distinguishing here between the source of increased or decreased funding but focusing on total revenues and expenditures. Roy (2011) examined a redistributive school finance reform initiated by the state legislature in Michigan in the mid-’90s, called Proposal A. This reform, which eliminated local discretion over school spending by increasing state aid to the lowest-spending districts and limiting it in the highest-spending districts, reduced spending disparities between districts, and increased student performance (state test scores) in the lowest-spending districts, though it also had a negative effect on student performance in the highest-spending districts. For an analysis of state school finance reforms affecting Kansas (“block grant funding” that froze district revenue regardless of enrollment and reduced funding in districts where enrollment increased), see Rauscher 2020. See Biasi 2019 for an examination of the effect of equalizing revenues across public school districts on students’ intergenerational mobility; Biasi finds that equalization has a large effect on mobility of low-income students, with no significant changes for high-income students.

16. Note that these analyses are based on cross-sectional data.

17. This post-1990 period, often referred to as the “adequacy era,” represented a time in which state-court decisions in multiple states resulted in increased public-school funding, offering an opportunity for researchers to study the overall impacts of these substantial increases and to compare them to student outcomes in states that did not experience them.

18. Their preferred estimates, based on the gradient of student achievement with respect to district income, indicate that a school funding reform raises achievement in a district with log average income one point below the state mean, relative to a district at the mean, by 0.1 standard deviations after 10 years.

19. High-poverty schools found it more difficult to fill vacancies than did low-poverty schools and schools overall, and high-poverty schools experienced higher turnover and attrition rates than did low-poverty schools (García and Weiss 2019).

20. Note that in this report, our main goal is to document the need and concept for such a program, not to discuss how best to design a public education automatic-stabilization program. These considerations, including specifically raising federal supports to education, have been discussed before (Boushey, Nunn, and Shambaugh 2019; Partelow, Yin and Sargrad 2020; Ogletree et al. 2017; Sahm 2019; Schott Foundation 2022; U.S. Department of Education 2013; Washington Center for Equitable Growth 2021; etc.).

21. Author Sylvia Allegretto’s analysis based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics data for 2019 (BLS-CES 2021). Education is one of the largest single components of government spending, amassing 7.3% of GDP across federal, state, and local expenditures (OECD 2013).

22. SNAP is the abbreviation for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as “food stamps.”

23. Data Household Pulse Survey (HHPS) from the U.S. Census Bureau found that 29.3% of respondents with children were food insecure in the week of April 23–July 21, 2020 (Schanzenbach and Tomeh 2020). Bauer (2020) estimates that there were almost 14 million children living in a household characterized by child food insecurity during the week of June 19–23, 2020, “5.6 times as many as in all of 2018 (2.5 million) and 2.7 times as many as during [the] peak of the Great Recession in 2008 (5.1 million).” Typically, these programs disproportionately benefit low-income communities, which are often hit the hardest, thus preventing even more damage and the exacerbation of the large existing inequities.

24. The term “contingency plans” comes from the education-in-emergencies field and is mostly applicable to international contexts, but it has also been used in the U.S. to give broader responses to crises such as Hurricane Katrina (The White House 2006). See García and Weiss 2020, 2021 for more details. The term “automatic trigger” is used to indicate what activates benefits or programs. See Mitchell and Husak 2021 and Boushey, Nunn, and Shambaugh 2019.

25. For flaws around one of those programs—unemployment insurance—see Bivens et al. 2021. Bitler, Hoynes, and Schanzenbach 2020 provide evidence for three reasons why the policy response left needs unmet: “(1) timing—relief came with a substantial delay (due to overwhelmed UI systems/need to implement new programs); (2) magnitude—payments outside UI are modest; and (3) coverage gaps—access is lower for some groups and other groups are statutorily excluded.”

26. See section summarizing the literature on the impacts of spending on education above.

27. We have discussed this point extensively in our other research on early childhood education, socio-emotional learning, and integrated student support, among others. See García 2015; García and Weiss 2017; García and Weiss 2016; Weiss and Reville 2019, among others, for guidance on smart education investments. See also Bryk et al. 2010 for a discussion on the role of context and how even after receiving funding, schools did not improve, and offering suggestions for school reform efforts.

28. California, which revamped the state’s education funding and accountability systems in the wake of the 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, offers a valuable model. See Furger, Hernández, and Darling-Hammond 2019 and Johnson and Tanner 2018.

29. For counties 2007–2019, see U.S. Census Bureau 2021.

30. As explained earlier in the report, we use current expenditures instead of total expenditures when comparing education spending between states or across districts, as suggested by the agency that provides the data, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This approach recognizes that current expenditures exclude expenditures for capital outlay, “which tend to have dramatic increases and decreases from year to year.” Also, “the current expenditures commonly reported are for public elementary and secondary education only. Many school districts also support community services, adult education, private education, and other programs, which are included in total expenditures. These programs and the extent to which they are funded by school districts vary greatly both across and within states and school districts.” See NCES 2008.

31. For 2018: https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/real-personal-income-state-and-metropolitan-area-2018 , and For Time Series: https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0920rpi/SARPP.zip

32. Note that we obtain the minority concentration from this source. Not used in this report.

33. Variables with the poverty quartiles are called POV_CDIST (our preferred Census SAIPE district) and povall (the one combining all sources).

34. Excluded are districts of vocational or special education system; nonoperating school system that exists for administrative purposes only and does not operate its own schools; LEAs that closed shortly before the start of the fiscal year or are scheduled to open in a future fiscal year but still reported revenue or expenditure information for the current fiscal year; and education service agency (ESA) (variable labeled schlev).

Allegretto, Sylvia A. 2016. California’s Labor Market: Eight Years Post-Great-Recession . Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics of the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Berkeley. May 2016.

Allegretto, Sylvia A. 2020. “The Critical Issues of Teacher Pay and Employment.” In Strike for the Common Good: Fighting for the Future of Public Education , edited by Rebecca Kolins Givan(1975– and Amy Schrager Lang. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Allegretto, Sylvia A, Emma García, and Elaine Weiss. 2021. “ Policymakers Cannot Relegate Another Generation to Underresourced K–12 Education Because of an Economic Recession ,” Working Economics Blog , Economic Policy Institute, July 14, 2021.

Anderson, Allison. 2020. “ COVID-19 Outbreak Highlights Critical Gaps in School Emergency Preparedness .” Education Plus Development (Brookings Institution blog), March 11, 2020.

Baker, Bruce D. 2018. Educational Inequality and School Finance: Why Money Matters for America’s Students . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press.

Baker, Bruce, and Sean Corcoran. 2012. The Stealth Inequities of School Funding: How State and Local School Finance Systems Perpetuate Inequitable Student Spending . Center for American Progress, September 2012.

Baker, Bruce D., Danielle Farrie, and David G. Sciarra. 2016. Mind the Gap: 20 Years of Progress and Retrenchment in School Funding and Achievement Gaps . Educational Testing Service Research Report No. RR-16-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12098 .

Baker, Bruce D., Matthew Di Carlo, and Mark Weber. 2020.  The Adequacy and Fairness of State School Finance Systems: Key Findings from the School Finance Indicators Database, Second Edition .  Albert Shanker Institute and Rutgers Graduate School of Education, February 2020.

Bauer, Lauren. 2020. “ About 14 Million Children in the US Are Not Getting Enough to Eat .” The Brookings Institution, July 9, 2020.

Bayer, Patrick, Peter Q. Blair, and Kenneth Whaley. 2020. “A National Study of School Spending and House Prices.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 28255, December 2020.

Behrman, Elizabeth. 2019. “ Landmark Lawsuit Challenges How Pennsylvania Funds Its Public Schools .” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . September 3, 2019.

Berry, Barnett, and Patrick M. Shields. 2017. “ Solving the Teacher Shortage: Revisiting the Lessons We’ve Learned .”  Phi Delta Kappan  98, no. 8: 8–18,  https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717708289 .

Berry, Christopher. 2021. “ Reassessing the Property Tax .” The University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and the College, March 1, 2021.

Biasi, Barbara. 2019: “ School Finance Equalization and Intergenerational Mobility: A Simulated Instruments Approach .” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 25600, October 2019.

Bivens, Josh, Melissa Boteach, Rachel Deutsch, Francisco Diez, Rebecca Dixon, Brian Galle, Alix Gould-Werth, Nicole Marquez, Lily Roberts, Heidi Shierholz, William Spriggs, and Andrew Stettner. 2021.  Reforming Unemployment Insurance: Stabilizing a System in Crisis and Laying the Foundation for Equity . A joint report of the Center for American Progress, Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, Groundwork Collaborative, National Employment Law Project, National Women’s Law Center, and Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June 2021.

Bitler, Marianne, Hilary W. Hoynes, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. 2020. “ The Social Safety Net in the Wake of COVID-19 .” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 27796, September 2020.

Boushey, Heather, Ryan Nunn, and Jay Shambaugh, eds. 2019. Recession Ready: Fiscal Policies to Stabilize the American Economy . Washington Center for Equitable Growth and The Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, May 2019.

Bradbury, Katharine. 2021. “ The Roles of State Aid and Local Conditions in Elementary School Test-Score Gaps .” Federal Reserve of Boston Research Department Working Papers, No. 21-2.

Bryk, Anthony S., Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth, John Q. Easton, and Stuart Luppescu. 2010.  Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2020. “ Effects of Selected Federal Pandemic Programs on Personal Income, May 2020 ” (data table). Released June 26, 2020.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2021. “Real Personal Income, Per Capita Personal Income, and Regional Price Parities: State.” From Real Personal Income for States and Metropolitan Areas: 2018 . Last accessed April 18, 2021.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (BLS-CPI). 2021. CPI-U-RS public data series . Various years.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (BLS-CES). 2021. Employment, Hours, and Earnings (database). Accessed May 11, 2021.

Candelaria, Christopher A., and Kenneth A. Shores. 2019. “Court-Ordered Finance Reforms in the Adequacy Era: Heterogeneous Causal Effects and Sensitivity.”  Education Finance and Policy 14, no. 1: 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00236 .

Carnoy, Martin, and Emma García. 2017.  Five Key Trends in U.S. Student Performance: Progress by Blacks and Hispanics, the Takeoff of Asians, the Stall of Non-English Speakers, the Persistence of Socioeconomic Gaps, and the Damaging Effect of Highly Segregated Schools . Economic Policy Institute, January 2017.

Caucutt, Elizabeth M., Lance Lochner, Joseph Mullins, and Youngmin Park. 2020. Child Skill Production: Accounting for Parental and Market-Based Time and Goods Investments . National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 27838, https://doi.org/ 10.3386/w27838.

Danilova, Maria. 2018. “ Fourth-graders Making No Improvements in Math or Reading, Study Says .” USA Today , April 10, 2018.

Duncan, Greg J., and Richard. J. Murnane. 2016. “ Rising Inequality in Family Incomes and Children’s Educational Outcomes .” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 2, no. 2, 142–158.

Chingos, Matthew M., Sandy Kress, Matthew Ladner, Susanna Loeb, Paul E. Peterson, Michael J. Petrilli, and Morgan S. Polikoff. 2019. “ What to Make of the 2019 Results from the ‘Nation’s Report Card .’” Education Next . October 30, 2019.

Evans, William N., Robert M. Schwab, and Kathryn L. Wagner. 2019. “The Great Recession and Public Education.”  Education Finance and Policy 2019, vol. 14, no. 2: 298–326. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00245

Farrie, Danielle, and David G. Sciarra. 2021. Making the Grade 2020 : How Fair Is School Funding in Your State ? Education Law Center. January 2021.

Filardo, Mary, Jeffrey M. Vincent, and Kevin J. Sullivan. 2019. “ How Crumbling School Facilities Perpetuate Inequality .” Phi Delta Kappan , April 29, 2019.

Furger, Roberta. C., Laura E. Hernández, and Linda Darling-Hammond. 2019.  The California Way: The Golden State’s Quest to Build an Equitable and Excellent Education System . Learning Policy Institute. February 2019.

Gamson, David A., Kathryn A. McDermott, and Douglas S. Reed. 2015. “ The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at Fifty: Aspirations, Effects, and Limitations .” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 1, no. 3 (December 2015).

García, Emma. 2015.  Inequalities at the Starting Gate: Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills Gaps Between 2010–2011 Kindergarten Classmates . Economic Policy Institute, June 2015.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2016.  Making Whole-Child Education the Norm: How Research and Policy Initiatives Can Make Social and Emotional Skills a Focal Point of Children’s Education . Economic Policy Institute, August 2016.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2017. Education Inequalities at the School Starting Gate: Gaps, Trends, and Strategies to Address Them . Economic Policy Institute, September 2017.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2019.  U.S. Schools Struggle to Hire and Retain Teachers:   The Second Report in the ‘Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor Market’ Series . Economic Policy Institute, April 2019.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2020. COVID-19 and Student Performance, Equity, and U.S. Education Policy: Lessons from Pre-pandemic Research to Inform Relief, Recovery, and Rebuilding . Economic Policy Institute, September 2020.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2021. “ Learning During the Pandemic: Lessons from the Research on Education in Emergencies for COVID-19 and Afterwards .” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 18, 2021.

Gibbons, S., Sandra McNally, and Martina Viarengo. 2018. “ Does Additional Spending Help Urban Schools? An Evaluation Using Boundary Discontinuities .” Journal of the European Economic Association 16, no. 5, 1618–1668.

Gould, Elise. 2017. “ Local Public Education Employment May Have Weathered Recent Storms, but Schools Are Still Short 327,000 Public Educators ” (economic snapshot). Economic Policy Institute, October 6, 2017.

Gould, Elise. 2019. “ Back-to-School Jobs Report Shows a Continued Shortfall in Public Education Jobs ” (economic snapshot). Economic Policy Institute, October 10, 2019.

Greaves, Ellen, and Luke Sibieta. 2019. “Constrained Optimisation? Teacher Salaries, School Resources and Student Achievement.” Economics of Education Review 73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101924 .

Griffith, Michael. 2021. “ An Unparalleled Investment in U.S. Public Education: Analysis of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 .” Learning in the Time of COVID-19 (Learning Policy Institute blog series), March 11, 2021.

Hussar, W.J., and T.M. Bailey. 2020. Projections of Education Statistics to 2028 (NCES 2020-024) . U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, May 2020. 

Hyman, J. 2017. “ Does Money Matter in the Long Run? Effects of School Spending on Educational Attainment .”  American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 9, no. 4: 256–80. 

Jackson, C. Kirabo. 2018. “ Does School Spending Matter?: The New Literature on an Old Question .” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 25368. December 2018.

Jackson, C. Kirabo, and Claire Mackevicius. 2021. “ The Distribution of School Spending Impacts .” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 28517, February 2021. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28517. 

Jackson, C. Kirabo, Cora Wigger, and Heyu Xiong. 2020 . “Do School Spending Cuts Matter? Evidence from the Great Recession.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 13, no. 2: 304–335. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20180674.

Jackson, C. Kirabo, Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico. 2016. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 131, no. 1: 157–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036 .

Johnson, Rucker C., and Sean Tanner. 2018.  Money and Freedom: The Impact of California’s School Finance Reform (research brief). Palo Alto, Calif.: Learning Policy Institute, February 2018..

Jordan, Phyllis W. 2021. “ What Congressional Covid Funding Means for K–12 Schools .” FutureEd (McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University). August 24, 2021.

Kornrich, Sabino. 2016. “Inequalities in Parental Spending on Young Children: 1972 to 2010.” AERA Open , vol. 2, no. 2: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416644180 .

Lafortune, Julien, Jesse Rothstein, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. 2018. “School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10, no. 2: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160567.

Leachman, Michael, and Eric Figueroa. 2019.  K–12 School Funding Up in Most 2018 Teacher-Protest States, But Still Well Below Decade Ago . Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 2019.

Leachman, Michael, Kathleen Masterson, and Eric Figueroa. 2017. A Punishing Decade for School Funding . Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 2017.

Malatras, Jim, and Nicholas Simons. 2019. “ A Preliminary Analysis of Teacher Salaries in New York by Region and Wealth .” Rockefeller Institute of Government, April 17, 2019.

Mishel, Lawrence, and Richard Rothstein. 2003.  The Class Size Debate . Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Mitchell, David, and Corey Husak. 2021. How to Replace COVID Relief Deadlines with Automatic ‘Triggers’ That Meet the Needs of the U.S. Economy . Washington Center for Equitable Growth, February 2021.

Morgan, Ivy, and Ary Amerikaner. 2018. “ An Analysis of School Funding Equity Across the U.S. and Within Each State .” Education Trust, February 27, 2018.

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). 2019. “ Reading Scores on the Nation’s Report Card Lower Than in 2017, While Math Results Vary ” (news release). October 30, 2019.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. 2008. “ Appendix A: Methodology and Technical Notes ,” in Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, School Year 2005–06 (Fiscal Year 2006) . Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2008-328.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. 2019. “ Table 106.70. Gross Domestic Product Price index, Consumer Price Index, Education Price Indexes, and Federal Budget Composite Deflator: Selected Years, 1919 Through 2019 .” Digest of Education Statistics: 2019 , Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Table prepared in February 2020.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. 2020a. “ Table 235.10. Revenues for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by Source of Funds: Selected Years, 1919–20 Through 2017–18 .” Digest of Education Statistics: 2020 , Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Table prepared in August 2020.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. 2020b. “ Table 235.20. Revenues for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by Source of Funds and State or Jurisdiction: 2017–18 .” Digest of Education Statistics: 2020 , Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Table prepared in August 2020.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. 2020c. “ Table 236.25. Current Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, by State or Jurisdiction: Selected Years, 1969–70 Through 2017–18 .” Digest of Education Statistics: 2020 , Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Table prepared in November 2020.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. 2020d. “ Table 208.40: Public Elementary and Secondary Teachers, Enrollment, and Pupil/Teacher Ratios, by State or Jurisdiction: Selected Years, Fall 2000 Through Fall 2018 .”  Digest of Education Statistics: 2020 , Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Table prepared in August 2020.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. 2020e. “ Table 203.50. Enrollment and Percentage Distribution of Enrollment in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by Race/Ethnicity and Region: Selected Years, Fall 1995 Through Fall 2029 .”  Digest of Education Statistics: 2020 , Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Table prepared in September 2020.

National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (NCES CCD), U.S. Department of Education. 2020 . Documentation for the NCES Common Core of Data School District Finance Survey (F-33), School Year 2017–18 (Fiscal Year 2018) . Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2020-309.

National Center for Education Statistics, Local Education Agency Finance Survey (NCES-LEAFS). 2021. 2007–2008 to 2017–2018 microdata from the Local Education Agency Finance Survey (F-33). NCES, U.S. Department of Education. Accessed March 2021.

National Education Association (NEA). 2020. Rankings of the States 2019 and Estimates of School Statistics 2020 . July 2020. Downloaded from https://www.nea.org/research-publications .

New Yorkers for Students’ Educational Rights (NYSER). n.d. “ Background: CFE v. State of New York ” (web page). Accessed July 2022.

Ogletree, Charles J., Jr., Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Alfred A. Lindseth, Rocco E. Testani, and Lee A. Peifer. 2017. “ Rodriguez Reconsidered: Is There a Federal Constitutional Right to Education? ” Education Next , Spring 2017.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2013. Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators . OECD Publishing/.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en.

Özek, Umut. 2020. “ Examining the Educational Spillover Effects of Severe Natural Disasters: The Case of Hurricane Maria .” American Institutes for Research/Calder Working Paper no. 233-0320, March 2020.

Partelow, Lisette, Jessica Yin, and Scott Sargrad. 2020. Why K–12 Education Needs More Federal Stimulus Funding . Center for American Progress, July 2020.

Raikes, Jeff, and Linda Darling-Hammond. 2019. “ Why Our Education Funding Systems Are Derailing the American Dream .” Money Matters (Learning Policy Institute blog series), February 18, 2019.

Rauscher, Emily. 2020. “Does Money Matter More in the Country? Education Funding Reductions and Achievement in Kansas, 2010–2018.”  AERA Open  6, no. 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420963685 .

Reardon, Sean F. 2011. “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations.” In  Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , edited by Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Reardon, S.F., A.D. Ho, B.R. Shear, E.M. Fahle, D. Kalogrides, H. Jang, H., and B. Chavez. 2021. Stanford Education Data Archive (Version 4.0). Retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974 .

Roy, Joydeep. 2011. “Impact of School Finance Reform on Resource Equalization and Academic Performance: Evidence from Michigan.” Education Finance and Policy 6, no. 2: 137–167. http://www.jstor.org/stable/educfinapoli.6.2.137.

Sahm, Claudia. 2019. “Direct Stimulus Payments to Individuals.” In Recession Ready: Fiscal Policies to Stimulate the American Economy , edited by Heather Boushey, Ryan Nunn, and Jay Shambaugh. Washington, D.C., The Hamilton Project, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and the Brookings Institution.

Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore. 2020. “The Economics of Class Size.” In  The Economics of Education (Second Edition), A Comprehensive Overview , edited by Steve Bradley and Colin Green, 321–331. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-8.00023-9 .

Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore, and Natalie Tomeh. 2020. “ Visualizing Food Insecurity: App Offers Snapshot of Weekly National and State-by-State Averages .” Institute For Policy Research, Northwestern University, July 14, 2020.

Schneider, Daniel, Orestes P. Hastings, and Joe LaBriola. 2018. “Income Inequality and Class Divides in Parental Investments.” American Sociological Review 83, no. 3, 475–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418772034 .

Sciarra, David, and Leigh Dingerson. 2021. From Courthouse to Statehouse—and Back Again: The Role of Litigation in School Funding Reform . Education Law Center, February 2021.

Schott Foundation for Public Education. 2022. “ Equity and Excellence Commission ” (web page). Accessed May 18, 2022.

Shores, Kenneth, and Steinberg, Matthew. 2017. “The Impact of the Great Recession on Student Achievement: Evidence from Population Data.” August 28, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3026151 .

Sosina, Victoria E., and Ericka S. Weathers. 2019. “ Pathways to Inequality: Between-District Segregation and Racial Disparities in School District Expenditures .” AERA Open 5, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419872445.

Srikanth, Anagha. 2021. “ Huge New Study Shows Homes in Poor Areas Are Taxed at Twice the Rate as Rich Neighborhoods .” The Hill , March 12, 2021.

Srikanth, Ajay, Michael Atzbi, Bruce D. Baker, and Mark Weber. 2020. How States Fund Education: The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Education Law . Edited by Kristine L. Bowman. New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190697402.013.10.

Turner, Corey, Reema Khrais, Tim Lloyd, Alexandra Olgin, Laura Isensee, Becky Vevea, and Dan Carsen. 2016. “ Why America’s Schools Have a Money Problem .” NPR’s Morning Edition , April 18, 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. “Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program (SAIPE) State and County Estimates,” 2007–2018. From SAIPE Datasets . Last accessed April 18, 2021.

U.S. Department of Education. 2013. For Each and Every Child—A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence . The Equity and Excellence Commission, February 2013.

Urban Institute. 2021a. “Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program (SAIPE) School District Estimates,” 2007–2018. From the Urban Institute Education Data Portal (Version 0.12.0), made available under the ODC Attribution License. Last accessed April 18, 2021.

Urban Institute. 2021b. “ State and Local Financial Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2018 .” Accessed August 2021.

Washington Center for Equitable Growth. 2021. Executive Action to Coordinate Federal Countercyclical Regulatory Policy  (fact sheet). February 2021.

Weiss, Elaine, and Paul Reville. 2019.  Broader, Bolder, Better: How Schools and Communities Help Students Overcome the Disadvantages of Poverty . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

The White House. 2006.  The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned . February 2006.

Zandi, Mark, and Bernard Yaros Jr. 2021. The Biden Fiscal Rescue Package: Light on the Horizon . Moody’s Analytics, January 15, 2021.

Zipperer, Ben. 2020. “ Over 13 Million More People Would Be in Poverty Without Unemployment Insurance and Stimulus Payments .” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 17, 2020.

See related work on Public Investment | Education | Educational inequity | Children | Budget, Taxes, and Public Investment | Stimulus/stabilization policy | Public Investment

See more work by Sylvia Allegretto , Emma García , and Elaine Weiss

Sign up to stay informed

New research, insightful graphics, and event invites in your inbox every week.

See related work on Public Investment , Education , Educational inequity , Children , Budget, Taxes, and Public Investment , Stimulus/stabilization policy , and Public Investment

Track EPI on Twitter

How can we get more Black teachers in the classroom?

California college savings accounts aren’t getting to all the kids who need them

How improv theater class can help kids heal from trauma

Patrick Acuña’s journey from prison to UC Irvine | Video

Family reunited after four years separated by Trump-era immigration policy

School choice advocate, CTA opponent Lance Christensen would be a very different state superintendent

Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay

Lessons in higher education: What California can learn

Keeping California public university options open

Superintendents: Well-paid and walking away

The debt to degree connection

College in prison: How earning a degree can lead to a new life

March 21, 2024

Raising the curtain on Prop 28: Can arts education help transform California schools?

February 27, 2024

Keeping options open: Why most students aren’t eligible to apply to California’s public universities

Arts education

California’s new budget includes historic funding for education

Big boost to funding formula, after-school for all and a promise for more cal grants, john fensterwald and yuxuan xie, july 1, 2022.

California school districts, enjoy it, make it last and spend it wisely, because you may never see an education budget like the one that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Thursday.

Total state funding for schools and community colleges will be $128 billion.

That’s a dramatic increase from 2011-12 when, in the depths following the Great Recession, districts and community colleges got $47.3 billion in funding from Proposition 98, the formula that determines how much of the state’s general fund goes to TK-12 and community colleges. In 2022-23, the total increase in Prop. 98 funding alone will be $37.2 billion.

Higher education funding also increased by 5% for general funding with new spending planned for Cal Grants, the state’s financial aid program for college students.

Inflation is running high, and staff shortages are big in many districts and charter schools. So a portion of that new money will cover rising costs, pay raises, new hires and a couple of billion dollars in districts’ share of higher pension costs for teachers and other employees.

The bulk of new money will go toward new programs and grants, most spread out over several years.

Elementary school families, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, should see a tangible, even life-changing benefit starting this fall. Their districts will be funded to offer three hours of before- and after-school activities and six weeks of summer school. At a minimum, they must offer the programs to all low-income students and English learners.

Transitional kindergarten will roll out for 4-year-olds who will celebrate their birthday between Dec. 2 and Feb. 2. That, in turn, will create some more state-funded preschool openings for 3-year-olds — a relief for at least some parents facing crushing child care costs.

“This is a continuation of our whole education agenda. Between this year’s and last year’s budget, which was also momentous, we have put a lot of components in place,” said Ben Chida, chief adviser to Newsom. “But I put myself in the shoes of the parents who are wondering, ‘Oh, great, record funding, but how do I see it in my schools?’ It is incumbent on us to deliver results. The big make or break is implementation and execution. That’s on all of us. It’s a shared responsibility.”

A progressive tax system, in which the highest 1% of earners pay 50% of the state income tax, produces boom and bust cycles. We’ve seen that for the last 40 years. Some economists are predicting that a recession could slam the door on the boom this year. But the budget assumes state revenues — and Prop. 98 — will at least be flat for another year. And if things go south, the Prop. 98 rainy day reserve will be filled to the brim — $9.5 billion — to be tapped when needed.

To simplify the complex, what follows is a graphic guide to key elements of the budget.

Most of the remaining funding is for grants, new programs and program expansions. Some are ambitious, including large appropriations for after-school programs, new career pathways in computing, health and education, literacy coaches in high-poverty schools and teacher training in math with a focus on pre-K to 3.

The largest, the $7.9 billion Learning Recovery Emergency Fund, gives districts five years to spend the money, and comes on top of billions of dollars in federal and previous state Covid relief funding. Much of that money remains unspent, with many parents unhappy there’s a lack of their No. 1 priority: tutoring.

The Learning Recovery Emergency Fund is among the new programs that are either restricted to or targeted to school districts serving low-income students.

Districts have complained that one-time funding inhibits districts from hiring teachers, counselors and aides because they could be forced to lay them off when the money runs out. But other districts, like Long Beach and Los Angeles Unified, have hired large numbers of staff, on the assumption that retirements and staff attrition and good planning would prevent a problem.

Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators, said it’s OK to invest in new people with dollars that can be used for an extended time — if districts have the reserves and a plan to avoid a fiscal cliff if funding is cut: but be cautious. He credited that advice as the “Mike Fine rule,” referring to the CEO of the Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team, or FCMAT, a state agency that assists districts to avoid financial insolvency.

A number of the other new TK-12 programs also have spending deadlines of at least three years.

Here’s a rundown of significant appropriations:

$7.9 billion, usable through 2027-28, with $650 million earmarked for community colleges.

TK-12 portion distributed to all districts — approximately $2,000 per child — tied to the numbers of English learners, low-income, foster and homeless students in a district.

Permissible uses include tutoring, learning recovery programs, literacy intervention and programs for pre-K to 3, after-school programs, health, mental health and social-emotional support, and actions to reduce or stabilize staff-to-student ratios (a flexible use).

$3.56 billion, usable through 2025-2026

One of the few programs distributed based on a district’s total average daily attendance, about $600 per student.

Permissible uses: Don’t be fooled by the title, which stresses instructional materials; it can also be used for “operational purposes,” including “retirement and health care cost increases.” In other words, it’s very flexible.

$4 billion, including $1 billion rolled over from last year

Funding will allow schools to add three hours of after-school programming for a nine-hour day and six weeks of summer enrichment programs for students who enroll. It will apply to all K-6 schools, with higher payments of $2,750 per English learner, low-income, foster or homeless youths in districts where those students comprise more than 75% of enrollment. These districts must offer the program to all students.

Per student payment in districts with fewer than 75% of high-needs students hasn’t been set but is expected to be about $1,250. These districts must offer the program to all high-needs students.

$500 million in planning and implementation grants of up to five years

Program will promote regional partnerships of school districts, higher education institutions, community groups and employers to advance students from high school to careers in health, computer science, education, STEM, and education, including early ed. Priority districts will be those with lower than average rates of A-G course completion and higher than average homelessness and foster youth, school suspension and expulsion and dropout rates.

$250 million

Grants will train and pay for literacy coaches, with grants of at least $450,000, usable through June 2027, in high-poverty schools in grades K-3 — those where at least 97% of students are English learners, low-income, homeless and foster children; $25 million will go to selected county offices of education to develop and provide training for educators to become literacy coaches and reading and literacy specialists.

$4.2 billion

Instead of issuing new state construction bonds, the state will spend $1.3 billion of what’s left from the 2016 bond and $2.9 billion from the state’s general fund in 2023-24 and 2024-25. Money will be distributed under the existing formula in which the state splits the cost of new construction with districts and pays 60% of renovation and modernization.

Other budget items include:

• $1.1 billion to add to the $3 billion from last year to create community schools in low-income neighborhoods.
• $184 million to establish teacher residencies for counselors in training, in which veteran counselors offer training and mentoring.
• $85 million for math professional development for teachers, led by the Fresno County Office of Education, with $35 million to develop math concepts and parent engagement for pre-K to 3, and $50 million for grades 4 to 12.

Higher education

The state budget increases general funding for the University of California and California State University by 5%. CSU’s budget will increase from $4.22 billion in 2021-22 to $4.43 billion in 2022-23. UC’s budget will increase from $4 billion in 2021-22 to $4.2 billion in 2022-23.

The budget also includes a plan to expand Cal Grants, the state’s primary financial aid program, if funds are available: $364.8 million in 2024-25; $348.8 million in 2025-26 to reform the program and expand eligibility to 150,000 students.

EdSource reporter Michael Burke contributed to this report.

To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.

Share Article

Comments (3)

Leave a comment, your email address will not be published. required fields are marked * *.

Click here to cancel reply.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy .

Jodie Keller 2 years ago 2 years ago

I really had hoped that the Governor would have recognized additional preschool programs serving the most vulnerable families in the State of California. The investment in our youth is welcomed but he completely forgot about the private providers and Head Start. Head Start and Early Head Start provides quality care and kindergarten readiness curriculum for children ages 0-5. These children will one day enter the K-12 system and deserve a chance to be … Read More

I really had hoped that the Governor would have recognized additional preschool programs serving the most vulnerable families in the State of California. The investment in our youth is welcomed but he completely forgot about the private providers and Head Start. Head Start and Early Head Start provides quality care and kindergarten readiness curriculum for children ages 0-5. These children will one day enter the K-12 system and deserve a chance to be ready. We too are suffering staff shortages and the staff deserve to be recognized as educators given the degrees they must hold to qualify as teachers.

Jennifer Wright 2 years ago 2 years ago

If you don’t have the woman/man power for these programs it doesn’t mean a thing!

Jay 2 years ago 2 years ago

I really hope this money actually reaches the classroom instead of once again being absorbed by district level coordinators and specialized programs with excessive administrative costs. If the money does not directly impact a student in the classroom (teachers, IAs, counselors), then it should not be spent. The state will never make the decision to tell districts how to spend the money, but the obvious directive would be to cap all class sizes and to … Read More

I really hope this money actually reaches the classroom instead of once again being absorbed by district level coordinators and specialized programs with excessive administrative costs. If the money does not directly impact a student in the classroom (teachers, IAs, counselors), then it should not be spent. The state will never make the decision to tell districts how to spend the money, but the obvious directive would be to cap all class sizes and to give teachers a salary adjustment to match inflation. This would not be considered a raise due to the importance of simply offering what should be an automatic cost of living adjustment.

EdSource Special Reports

Interactive Map: Chronic absenteeism up in nearly a third of 930 California districts

Nearly a third of the 930 districts statewide that reported data had a higher rate of chronic absenteeism in 2022-23 than the year before.

Bill to mandate ‘science of reading’ in California schools faces teachers union opposition

The move puts the fate of AB 2222 in question, but supporters insist that there is room to negotiate changes that can help tackle the state’s literacy crisis.

California, districts try to recruit and retain Black teachers; advocates say more should be done

In the last five years, state lawmakers have made earning a credential easier and more affordable, and have offered incentives for school staff to become teachers.

Bias, extra work and feelings of isolation: 5 Black teachers tell their stories

Five Black teachers talk about what they face each day in California classrooms, and what needs to change to recruit and retain more Black teachers.

EdSource in your inbox!

Stay ahead of the latest developments on education in California and nationally from early childhood to college and beyond. Sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email.

Stay informed with our daily newsletter

CFT – A Union of Educators and Classified Professionals

Education sees another increase in governor’s state budget proposal legislative update.

India’s Education Budget 2024 Updates: The Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, in her speech for the Union Budget 2024, reiterated that there has been an increase in higher educational institutes and women in STEM courses in the last 10 years. She further said that the National Education Policy is ushering in transformational reforms.

The funding for UGC has been brought down to Rs 2,500 crore from the previous year’s revised estimate of Rs 6,409 crore, a 60.99 per cent drop. However, the grants for central universities saw an increase of over Rs 4,000 crore with Rs 15,928 crore allocated for the financial year 2024-25.

Last year, the Education Ministry’s budget allocation increased by a marginal 8 per cent from Rs 1.12 lakh crore as opposed to 1.04 lakh crore in 2022-23.

Allocation for the World Class Institutions’ for Institutions of Eminence (IoE) has increased from Rs 1,500 crore in 2023-24 to Rs 1,800 crore in 2024-25. For research and innovation, it rose to Rs 355 crore from Rs 210.61 crore allocated last year. The allocation for Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan also saw a nominal increase from Rs 37,453.47 crore to Rs 37,500 crore in 2024-25.

In the 2023 budget, the Centre announced a national digital library for children and adolescents. A similar initiative was also announced in 2018 by the then HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar. Since then, a national digital library has been run by IIT Kharagpur.

Hits and misses

The Budget 2024 initiatives by the Indian government in education are commendable on three counts and have a couple of misses

First, fiscal rectitude, which has figures of 5.1% vs 5.8%. This bodes well for inflation, credit ratings and exchange rate stability.

Second, with a significant allocation of Rs. 1.12 lakh crore, including Rs. 44,095 crore for Higher Education, there's a clear focus on developing a skilled workforce. The notable 28% increase in female enrollment in higher education over the past decade is a testament to our strides towards inclusivity. Furthermore, the impressive accomplishments of the Skill India Mission, which has trained 1.4 crore youth and upskilled 54 lakh individuals, play a crucial role in bridging skill gaps and fostering growth. Additionally, the enrollment of 43% of females in STEM courses reflects our progress in promoting gender inclusivity. These initiatives promise a brighter future for India's youth and signify a positive trajectory for our nation's development.

Third, the increase in caped means that infrastructure will continue to develop at a fast clip. The recent evidence of better execution means that we will see visible change in improved infrastructure.

The first downside is that there is a missed opportunity to rationalise taxes. Indian rates are already high comparatively. The aim has to be to make India the place to invest in not just because of China +1, and local demand but also because it is a great tax destination. The fiscal headroom allows this. The second miss is a lack of sufficient increase in investment in R&D. A developed nation requires the central government leading from the front in R&D.

--  Prof Arvind Sahay, Director at MDI Gurgaon

Education Budget 2024 Live: '50-year interest-free loan'

The Union Budget 2024 is a progressive budget in sync with the vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047 in harmony with nature, modern infrastructure and opportunities for all. The budget aims to empower the youth by providing training to 1.4 crore youth, under Skill India Mission, and fostering entrepreneurial aspirations of the youth by sanctioning 43 crore loans under PM Mudra Yojana.

The Budget focusses on the “Golden Era for tech-savvy youth” since a corpus of Rs 1 lakh crore will be established with a 50-year interest-free loan provided to them, with low or zero interest rates. With a strong focus on science, technology, start-ups and innovation, the budget aims to propel the scientific development of the country and fulfill the goal of India being the third largest economy by 2047.

- Dr. Balvinder Shukla, Vice Chancellor, Amity University Uttar Pradesh

Education Budget 2024 Live: Highlights from 2024-25 interim budget

• Education Ministry’s overall budget allocation this year increased by 6.8 per cent from Rs 1,20,627.87 crore as opposed to Rs 1,12,899.47 crore in 2023-24.
• UGC allocation saw a cut of little over 50 per cent with just Rs 2,500 crore allocation for the financial year 2024-25 from Rs 5,360 crore in 2023-24 budget estimate.
• Central universities grants saw an increase of over Rs 4,000 crore with Rs 15,928 crore allocated for FY 2024-25.
• Under the ‘World Class Institutions’ for Institutions of Eminence (IoE), allocation has increased to Rs 1,800 crore from Rs 1,500 crore in 2023-24.
• For research and innovation, allocation has been hiked to Rs 355 crore from Rs 210.61 crore.
• For Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan allocation increased marginally by Rs 46.5 crore, from Rs 37,453.47 crore to Rs 37,500 crore in 2024-25.
• The PM POSHAN scheme saw an increase of over Rs 800 crore in allocation from Rs 11,600 in 2023-24 to Rs 12,467.39 crore in 2024-25.
• Rs 6,050 crore allocated for PM Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI).

Budget Live: IITs too see dip in budget

The budget for Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) has also seen a marginal dip from the RE last year. The grant to the top technology institutions has dropped from RE of Rs 10,384.21 crore to Rs 10324.50. However, the support grant for Central Universities has increased by over 28 per cent.

The budget for Central Universities has been increased to Rs 15472 crore from RE of Rs 12000.08 crore.

Budget Live: Govt slashes UGC funds

The funding for UGC has been brought down to Rs 2500 crore from the previous year's RE of Rs 6409 crore, a 60.99 per cent drop. Meanwhile, the allocation for Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) has been slashed too for the second consecutive year. The budget for school education has been increased by over Rs 500 crore but the grant for higher education has been reduced by over Rs 9600 crore from the previous fiscal year's Revised Estimate (RE). -- PTI

Education Budget 2024 Live: Were funds increased for KVS last year?

Yes, allocation in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had increased by Rs. 713.98 crore (9.33 per cent) (from Rs.7650.00 crore in budget estimate 2022-23 to Rs. 8363.98 crore in budget estimate 2023-24) and in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti by 1371.50 cr (33.32 per cent) (from Rs.4115.00cr in budget estimate 2022-23 to Rs. 5486.50 cr in budget estimat 2023-24).

Education Budget 2024 Live: 43% women enrolments in STEM courses

The finance minister reported a 28 per cent increase in female enrollment in higher education. She also stated that in STEM courses, women now make up an impressive 43 per cent of the total enrollment, marking one of the highest figures globally.

Education Budget 2024 Live: 54 lakh youth upskilled and reskilled

"The Skill India Mission has trained 1.4 crore youth, upskilled and reskilled 54 lakh youth and established 3000 new ITIs. A large number of new institutions of higher learning, namely 7 IITs, 16 IIITs, 7 IIMs, 15 AIIMS and 390 universities have been set up," Nirmala Sitharaman said.

Education Budget 2024 Live: Hope for skilled youth

Experts see hope for the future of skilled youth through this Interim Budget. "The focus on skilling India's youth through initiatives like NEP and Skill India Mission, and the emphasis on both traditional and non-traditional skilling avenues is a laudable step towards India's aspirations of becoming a ‘Viksit Bharat’ by 2047. Public-private partnerships and leveraging industry expertise will be crucial in bridging the skill gap and empowering the ‘Amrit Peedhi’ for a developed India by 2047," said  Md. Sajid Khan, Director-India, ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants).

Education Budget 2024 Live: 'NEP 2020 is transforming education'

"Our prosperity depends on adequately equipping and empowering the youth. The National Education Policy 2020 is ushering in transformational reforms. PM ScHools for Rising India (PM SHRI) are delivering quality teaching and nurturing holistic and well-rounded individuals," the finance minister said.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Female enrollment increases in STEM courses

The female enrollment in higher education has gone up by 28 per cent in 10 years in STEM courses. These measures are getting reflected in the increasing participation of women in workforce, the Finance Minister stated.

'Skill India achieving remarkable milestones'

FM's comprehensive strategy focuses on education and skill enhancement, with Skill India achieving remarkable milestones. Increased women's participation in STEM fields contributes to India's goal of becoming a talent superpower. We are entering an era where inclusivity and educational empowerment support digital, health, and green developments. Wider opportunities, innovations, and enhanced GOI support in 2024 empower our tech-savvy youth. 

– Mayank Kumar, co-founder and MD, upGrad

'Focus on research is a good move'

"Setting up of new medical colleges will reinforce India’s objective of talent development in the healthcare space. Providing an impetus to develop research ecosystem in the country, a new corpus of 100,000 cr with 50-year interest free will be established. This will help private sector participation, including educational institutions, to do innovative research with focus on sunrise domain or sectors."

-- Sahil Gupta, Partner, Deloitte India

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Higher education sector has experienced robust growth

Prof. Abhradeep Maiti, Chairperson – Admissions, Economics, IIM Kashipur said, “Declaring that the Skill India Mission had been successfully adopted, the interim budget 2024 guaranteed that the government would place equal emphasis on governance, development, and performance. The mission has successfully trained 1.4 crore youth, upskilled and re-skilled 54 lakh youth, established 3000 new ITIs, 7 IITs, 16 IIITs, 7 IIMs, 15 AIIMS, and 390 universities. With the union government placing a strong emphasis on funding the National Research Fund and establishing the Higher Education Commission to improve ed-tech resources like digital infrastructure, digital repositories, and hybrid models of in-person and online learning to meet the growing demand, the higher education sector has experienced robust growth.”

No mention on constructive measures to tackle youth’s mental health: Peakmind

As per Neeraj Kumar, founder & CEO of Peakmind, while unveiling the Union Budget 2024, the Finance Minister expanded on the progress we have made as a nation in the field of education and how the National Education Policy 2020 is driving substantial reforms in this sector. The progress is quite laudable; however, no mention has been made of taking constructive measures to tackle the growing concern of youth’s mental health and suicide issues. The sooner this is brought into focus the better it would be for the leaders of tomorrow, in whose hands our future rests. While the Skill India Mission has successfully trained 1.4 crore young individuals, providing upskilling and re-skilling opportunities to 54 lakh youths, and establishing 3000 new Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs), very little has been done to address the growing academic distress that students need to deal with in their developmental years.

Centre proposes law to curb paper leaks

In other news, the Union govt plans to introduce the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024, during the ongoing session of Parliament. The Bill aims to curb cases related to paper leaks and organised cheating in public examinations, including the UPSC, SSC, and the Railways; and entrance examinations such as NEET, JEE, and CUET.

According to sources, the Union Cabinet has approved the draft of the Bill, and it is likely to be tabled in Parliament on Friday or on Monday. Read more

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Skill India Mission’s initiative to train 1.4 crore individuals

The Skill India Mission’s initiative to train 1.4 crore individuals, along with the upskilling and re-skilling of 54 lakh youth, coupled with the establishment of 3,000 new Industrial Training Institutes is a vital step towards bolstering the Make in India programs. This comprehensive approach is essential in enhancing the manufacturing sector’s contribution to the GDP from 17% to 25% by 2047, thereby creating numerous job opportunities.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: What did Nirmala Sitharaman say about education?

The National Education Policy 2020 is ushering transformational reforms. PM Shri is delivering quality teaching, says Nirmala Sitharaman.

#Budget2024 #ViksitBharatBudget Empowering Amrit Peedhi, the youth The National Education Policy 2020 is ushering transformational reforms PM Shri is delivering quality teaching Skill India Mission has trained 1.4 crore youth, upskilled and reskillled 54 lakh youth and… — PIB India (@PIB_India) February 1, 2024

Education Budget 2024 Live: Over 1.4 crore youth trained

"The Skill India Mission has trained 1.4 crore youth, upskilled and re-skilled 54 lakh youth, and established 3000 new ITIs. A large number of institutional higher learning, namely 7 IITs, 16 IIITs, 7 IIMs, 15 AIIMS and 390 Universities have been set up," Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Are schools ready for Indian language teaching?

While learning the Indian languages/ mother tongue is one of the debates behind the idea of having a school curriculum in Indian languages, another reason is to promote the languages. However, experts and parents believe that while this sounds good on paper, we cannot negate the importance of the global language, English, which often acts as the window to the world.

“Students from Hindi-medium schools may face challenges in competitive exams, which are predominantly conducted in English. The language barrier can potentially put them at a disadvantage compared to their English-medium counterparts,” says Devyani Jaipuria, Pro-Vice Chairperson, DPS International.

Read full report here

Education Budget 2024 Live: 14500 schools were to be upgraded

PM Shri Schools which were announced in 2022’s budget speech, but were not allocated any money, have been given Rs 4,000 crore this year. 

As per Budget 2023, under PM Schools for Rising India or PM Shri, 14500 schools are expected to be upgraded to showcase components of the new National Education Policy 2020.

In other news CBSE Class 10, 12 Plan: 3 languages, 7 other subjects in Class 10; 6 papers in Class 12

CBSE is reported to have proposed significant changes to the academic framework for secondary and higher secondary education, including a shift from studying two languages to three in Class 10, with the requirement that at least two must be native Indian languages. Furthermore, students in Class 10 may now need to pass in 10 subjects, as opposed to the current requirement of five.

Similarly, for Class 12, the proposed changes involve students studying two languages instead of one, with the condition that at least one must be a native Indian language. Overall, they would have to clear examinations in six subjects instead of five to graduate from high school.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Check highlights of last year's budget

— 157 new nursing colleges to be established 

— 38,800 teachers, support staff recruitment for 740 Eklavya Model Residential Schools.

— Three new centres of excellence for AI in top educational institutions.

— Ministry of Education allocated Rs 1.12 lakh crore budget

Education Budget 2024 Live: Jagdeep Dhankhar on Interim Budget 2024

"Some glimpses from the first day of the Budget Session at Parliament House today," the Vice President of India posted on his official X account.

Some glimpses from the first day of the Budget Session at Parliament House today... @rashtrapatibhvn #BudgetSession pic.twitter.com/knIfG9ftLu — Vice President of India (@VPIndia) January 31, 2024

Budget 2024 Live Updates: More medical colleges to be set up

More medical colleges to be set up soon, the Finance Minister says. "Our government plans to set up more medical colleges by utilizing the existing hospital infrastructure," Sitharaman said.

For this, a committee will be set up to examine issues and make recommendations.

Education Budget 2024 Live: Women overcoming challenges in workforce

Budget 2024 live updates: experts ask for reduction in gst slab on educational products and services.

Experts believe the GST slab on educational products and services must be reduced to ease the financial burden on parents and promote affordability. Maheshwari focused on the need for collaboration between the public and private sectors to drive a change in the sector at scale.

Saurabh Mittal, CFO of S Chand and Company Limited reiterated that all inputs from paper and printing to content development and royalty have a GST rate of 5-18 per cent, while the book publishing industry has a zero GST. He expects a reduction of GST rates on services including royalty or a mechanism for refund.

“In the book publishing industry, the product has a Zero GST rate, however all inputs from paper, printing, consumables, content development, professional services, and even Royalty (RCM) have a GST Rate of 5-18%, which has had a severe impact on margins for the trade which has had 3 bad years during Covid-19. The Industry hopes for a reduction of GST rates on services like royalty, or a mechanism for refund,” he said.

Read more here

deleting_message

Budget 2024 Live Updates: More women choosing STEM courses

The Finance Minister has calimed that 43 per cent enrolled students in STEM are women.

Education Budget 2024 Live: NEP 2020 bringing transformational reforms in schools

'The National Education Policy 2020 is ushering the transformational reforms in schools for rising India. It is delivering quality teaching and nurturing, holistic and well rounded individuals scaling their mission to one point,' Sitharaman said in the Parliament.

Education Budget 2024 Live: Nearly 390 new universities set up

The present government has set up 7 new IITs, 16 IIITs, 7 IIMs, 15 AIIMS and 390 new universities have been set up, Nirmala Sitharaman stated.

Education Budget 2024 Live: Check UGC's allocation

In 2023, the University Grants Commission was allocated Rs 5,350 crore versus budget allocation of Rs 4,900 crore.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Experts call for strategic funding for AI, digital infrastructure

Strategic funding should support AI-driven educational models, digital infrastructure, and AI literacy, Vineet Nayar, former CEO of HCL Technologies and Founder and chairman of Sampark Foundation said. Such initiatives, he added, must extend beyond conventional classrooms, ensuring equitable access across socio-economic strata.

“Investments in AI research, especially in educational applications, are vital. Collaboration between educational institutions and industry can accelerate AI solutions for educational needs. Teacher training in AI, developing AI-enabled learning tools, and democratising technology access are essential for an AI-ready generation,” Nayar said adding that the Union  Budget 2024  should not only increase allocation but strategically channel resources for AI embedding in education.

Education Budget 2024 Live: Listen to Nirmala Sitharaman's speech

Listen to Nirmala Sitharaman's speech here ??

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Highlights of Education Budget 2023

Education budget 2024 live: iits remain optimistic about potential allocations for higher education and niche research.

"Adequate funding in key areas will undoubtedly catalyze research, innovation, entrepreneurship and infrastructure development, fostering a brighter future for our academic community, industry and the nation at large. We look forward to a knowledge-based Viksit Bharat with our students," Prof. Rajeev Ahuja, Officiating Director, IIT Guwahati said.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Union Cabinet approves pre-election Budget

The Union Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has approved the pre-election Budget, as reported by PTI

Education Budget 2024 Live: President Murmu extends her best wishes to the Union Finance Minister

'Union Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs Smt Nirmala Sitharaman along with Ministers of State Dr Bhagwat Kishanrao Karad and Shri Pankaj Chaudhary and senior officials of the Ministry of Finance called on President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan before presenting the Union Budget. President Murmu extended her best wishes to the Union Finance Minister,' the President's official X handle stated.

Union Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs Smt Nirmala Sitharaman along with Ministers of State Dr Bhagwat Kishanrao Karad and Shri Pankaj Chaudhary and senior officials of the Ministry of Finance called on President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan before presenting the… pic.twitter.com/miwSv8r4dE — President of India (@rashtrapatibhvn) February 1, 2024

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Experts call for funds for start-ups

Prof Thillai Rajan A, IIT Madras is looking forward to a slew of booster measures in the 2024 budget that bring back the winds to the sails of the start-up ecosystem.

Reiterating that there have been very few comparable initiatives in independent India that have galvanised so many departments and ministries of the Indian government, the IIT Madras professor said: “More than ?20,00,000 crore has been invested in start-ups in the country. However, since the high peak of 2021, the number of start-ups created has been gradually declining. As somebody who is keenly following the contribution of the start-ups, I look forward to a slew of booster measures in this Budget that brings back the winds to the sails of the Start-up ecosystem.”

Read more budget expectations here

Education Budget 2024 Live: Copies of the Budget arrive at Parliament

As the Finance Minister and her team complete all formalities associated with tabling the budget in the Parliament today, copies of the Union Budget arrived at Parliament this morning.

#WATCH | Interim Budget copies arrive in Parliament, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to present her sixth straight budget today pic.twitter.com/ZFKdzcx7kt — ANI (@ANI) February 1, 2024

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Sitharaman meets President Murmu

The Union Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitharaman met President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan before presenting the Union Budget. Ministers of State Dr Bhagwat Kishanrao Karad and Pankaj Chaudhary and senior officials of the Ministry of Finance were also present.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Budget allocation to scheme of STARS increased by Rs 250 crore in 2023

Budget allocation for financial year 2023-24 for the World Bank aided Scheme of STARS had increased by Rs. 250.00 crore (45.45 per cent) from Rs. 550.00 cr in budget estimate 2022-23 to Rs. 800.00 crore in budget estimate 2023-24.

Education Budget 2024 Live: Experts demand reduction in education loans

As more and more Indian students head abroad to pursue higher education, study abroad experts are urging the government to  consider a reduction in interest rates on education loans and actively promote an increase in the education loan limit for public sector banks.

"This would create an environment where talented and deserving students can better pursue their aspirations of studying abroad. With India securing its position as one of the fastest-growing economies, a strong foundation for future growth is laid, offering promising students the opportunity to dream big and pursue international education. India stands as a huge contributor to the global student population studying abroad across destinations; hence, it would be beneficial if the government could consider reducing interest rates on education loans to support this significant demographic further," Piyush Kumar, Regional Director- South Asia and Mauritius, IDP Education told  indianexpress.com

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Experts call for investment in digital connectivity, advancement

As per the recent Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) , more than half of 14- to 18-year-old children in rural India cannot solve a simple three-digit division problem that’s usually taught in Class 3-4 and struggle with everyday skills, including determining time and doing basic calculations.

Keeping this in mind, the experts believe that in this Interim Budget, there is a need for enhancement of digital infrastructure to increase accessibility and facilitate the seamless implementation of learning solutions for children in the remotest corners of the country who seek access to high-quality online content.

Read more expectations here

Education Budget 2024 Live: Changes in PM Poshan

Yesterday, the outlay for PM Poshan was increased by 13.3 per cent, taking the allocation to Rs 11,600 crore from Rs 10,233 crore. In addition to this, the government had also announced that a National Digital Library will be set up for “children and adolescents” to provide a supply of good quality books at a time when students are trying to cope with the learning losses suffered during the pandemic.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: What was announced about digital library in 2023?

Last year, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a national digital library for children and adolescents. A similar initiative was also announced in 2018 by the then Education Minister Prakash Javadekar. Since then, a national digital library is being run by IIT Kharagpur. It’s not clear how the finance minister’s announcement is different from what’s already in place.

Education Budget 2024 Live: What do experts expect from this year's Interim Budget?

'We need to allocate funds towards establishing AR/VR labs and Robotics facilities in schools, enhancing the learning experience through technology. The budget should actively support digital education initiatives by offering tax incentives and forming partnerships with tech companies to improve online learning platforms. To foster a future-ready workforce, there is a need to integrate subjects like analytics into the school curriculum, ensuring that students are equipped with essential skills early on, aligning with the evolving demands of the digital age. Remote learning has emerged as a powerful tool, democratizing education by breaking down geographical barriers and providing access to quality learning experiences for students, irrespective of their location,' says Devyani Jaipuria, who is the Pro-Vice Chairperson DPS International, DPS Gurgaon, DPS Jaipur, Chairperson - Dharav High School, Jaipur.

Read more pre-budget expectations here

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Finance Minister poses at the Finance Ministry

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman with her team posed for photographs at the Finance Ministry before presenting the Budget in New Delhi on Thursday. 

(Express photo by Tashi Tobgyal)

Education Budget 2024 Live: What was last year's budget allocation for Education?

Last year, the Education Ministry’s budget allocation increased by a marginal 8 per cent from Rs 1.12 lakh crore as opposed to 1.04 lakh crore in 2022-23.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: 'Relevant tax exemptions and lower GST rates to bridge the skill gap'

Saying that India has the potential to emerge as a global superpower in education, Siddharth Banerjee, CEO, UNIVO Education said: "Aided by the framework of the NEP 2020 and the recent positive developments for the online higher education industry, we are well positioned to accelerate our GER from current 27% levels."

Given the importance of quality online education, the government will surely consider relevant Tax exemptions and lower GST rates to bridge the skill gap, along with encouraging reduced and subsidized interest rates on educational loans for aspiring students across the nation, he added.

"Online Higher Education in India goes across socio-economic strata and across Metro/ Tier 2-3-4 cities and we look forward to continued support from the government to continue aiding the nation-building efforts by providing quality higher education and helping improve lives and careers," he said.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: What is an interim budget?

An interim budget, set to be presented tomorrow, February 1, 2024, will be a temporary financial plan. The interim budget is announced before a new government is set to come in after general elections.

Education Budget 2024 Live: 'Crucial need for a budget that integrates AI and technology into education'

Aligned with the holistic goals of Viksit Bharat@2047, encompassing economic growth, social progress, environmental sustainability, and good governance, Dhruv Galgotia, CEO, Galgotias University, underscores the crucial need for a budget that integrates AI and technology into education.

This integration, he adds, stands as a pivotal step towards aligning the educational system with the future demands envisioned by the Prime Minister's initiative. Looking forward to 2024, Galgotias University sets its sights on pioneering pedagogical approaches tailored to the 21st-century landscape.

Actively investing in advanced teaching methodologies, fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, and cultivating an environment that champions exploration and creativity, the institution's forward-looking approach goes beyond conventional education, aiming to empower students with the skills, mindset, and resilience necessary for success in our ever-evolving global landscape.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: Where to watch education budget 2024?

Mark your calendars for the Interim Union Budget 2024! Union Finance Minister @nsitharaman to present the #InterimBudget on February 1, 2024 ??Watch here: https://t.co/F8aOXX6Qfb — PIB India (@PIB_India) January 30, 2024

Education Budget 2024 Live: Reduction or waiver in Tax Collected at Source

•  A reduction or waiver in Tax Collected at Source (TCS) while remitting money for overseas education and ancillary activities will be a welcome sign. 
• Lowering or waiving off TCS while remitting funds overseas for education will ease the burden on families and encourage more students to explore educational opportunities at a destination of their choice.
• Exploring student concessions on air travel is imperative to make global education economically viable for a broader demographic of students, fostering cultural exchange and elevating India's representation on the global academic stage.

Saurabh Arora, CEO, University Living

Budget 2024 Live Updates: 'Targeted scholarship schemes for Tier 2 and Tier 3 city students'

The government should recognize and harness the potential of Indian students in STEM abroad by implementing measures to make international education more accessible and affordable, Career Mosaic spokesperson Manisha Zaveri, Joint Managing Director said.

This could involve targeted scholarship schemes for tier 2 and tier 3 city students, tax benefits for families supporting overseas education and streamlined visa processes. A supportive budget addressing these aspects will not only enable students to pursue their international education dreams but also contribute significantly to India's long-term economic and intellectual growth, she added.

Budget 2024 Live Updates: 'Accelerate global mobility of India’s young talent'

Sachin Jain, Country Manager, India and South Asia ETS urges policymakers to allocate resources that accelerate global mobility of India’s young talent. This, Jain added, includes the inclusion of language skills and internationally recognized work skill certifications in Indian classrooms.

Skills development enterprises, both public and private, must leverage globally benchmarked and recognised skills framework and certifications as these are valued by employers internationally, he added.

Policy-makers should also look at comprehensive merit scholarship programme for deserving Indian students for postgraduate and research studies in foreign universities to drive research and innovation in India post-completion of their studies. We also urge policymakers to advance public-private partnership models that accentuate the 'Study In India' initiative, which aims to reinforce India’s position as a Vishwa-Guru to the world.

Education Budget 2024 Live: A look at past year allocations

The Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had allocated Rs 99,300 crore for the Ministry of Education in 2020 — a hike of 4.6 per cent over Rs 94,855 crore in 2019. In 2021, the Education Ministry got an allocation of Rs 93,224 crores, Rs 1.04 lakh crore in 2022 and in 2023, Rs 1.12 lakh crore. The  Department of School Education was allocated Rs 68,804 crore last year and the Department of Higher Education was allocated Rs 44,094 crore.

Union Budget 2024 Updates:  The education industry has high expectations from the Budget. From boosting funds for AI-based technologies and prioritising school infrastructure, educationists are expecting more budget allocation for this segment. Also, ed-techs are demanding a reduction in the GST slab on educational products and services and the need to augment existing space institutes and establishment of new ones.

• The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
• Budget 2024
• Nirmala Sitaraman
• Union Budget
• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Gold Rate Today
• Silver Rate Today
• Petrol Rate Today
• Diesel Rate Today
• Web Stories

• Bihar Board

SRM University

Ap inter results.

• AP Board Results 2024
• UP Board Result 2024
• CBSE Board Result 2024
• MP Board Result 2024
• Rajasthan Board Result 2024
• Shiv Khera Special
• Education News
• Web Stories
• Current Affairs
• नए भारत का नया उत्तर प्रदेश
• School & Boards
• College Admission
• Govt Jobs Alert & Prep
• GK & Aptitude
• Education news
• Latest Education News

Education Budget 2023 Highlights: PDF Download with Key Summary and Takeaways

Education budget 2023-24: finance minister nirmala sitharaman presented the union education budget 2023-24 in parliament on february 1. here are the key highlights from education budget 2023, summary, explanations, and complete analysis. .

Education Budget 2023 Live Updates by FM Nirmala Sitharaman Speech: The Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented the Union Budget 2023 in Parliament on February 1. This is the fifth budget presented by the Finance Minister since she took over the Ministry of Finance of the country. Union Budget 2023 is the last full-fledged budget before the Lok Sabha polls next year. 

Education Budget 2023 Allocation 

Education budget 2023 highlights, 100 labs to be set up in engineering colleges to develop apps using 5g.

FM Nirmala Sitharaman has announced that 100 labs will be set up in engineering institutions that will work on developing applications using 5G services in collaboration with various authorities, banks, regulators and other businesses. The applications will include smart classrooms, intelligent transport system, precision farming, and healthcare applications to utilise the new technological opportunities coming in with the prospect of fresh business models and potential jobs.  

National Digital Library To Be Set Up 

Multidisciplinary courses for medical devices and research .

Finance Minister also announced multidisciplinary courses for medical devices will be supported in existing institutions to ensure the availability of skilled manpower for futuristic medical technologies, high-end manufacturing and research.

Recruitment of Teachers for Tribal Schools

To boost education for tribal students, the government will recruit 38,800 teachers within the next three years to the 748 modern residential schools, serving 3.5 lakh tribal students. As many as 38,000 teachers and support staff are to be recruited in the next 3 years, for 740 Eklavya Model Residential Schools serving 3.5 lakh tribal students.

Make AI in India and Make AI Work for India

Pm kausal vikas yojana 4.0 for skill development .

The Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana, which is a skill development initiative scheme for the recognition and standardisation of skills, is being levelled up. Indian youth will get access to courses that can skill them in coding, robotics, drones, mechatronics, IoT, 3D printing, and essential soft skills so that they are ready for the global job industry.  

Devyani Jaipuria, Chairperson of Dharav High School, Pro- Vice Chairperson- DPS International Gurugram, DPS 45 & DPS Jaipur, stated - "To start with, the clear commitment to setting up 30 India International Skill centers across states under Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana 4.0 will not only train and build skills among children but also help in channelising the efforts to make India the source of skilled manpower for the world. "

The finance minister proposed the launch of a unified Skill India digital platform that will facilitate formal skilling as per demands, provide access to entrepreneurship schemes, and also link job-seekers with employers including MSMEs. Devyani Jaipuria further stated - " Additionally, the focus on traditional artisans and micro-entrepreneurs and linking them to the MSME chain and providing them a forward linkage to their products and craft will further have a positive impact on both the skill and entrepreneurship development in the rural areas."

Education Budget 2023 Live Updates What’s New: Funds, Schemes, Interventions  

• The government will launch Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana 4.0: FM Nirmala Sitharaman
• Phase 3 of E-courts projects to be launched with outlay of Rs 7,000 crore: FM Nirmala Sitharaman
• Leading industry players will partner to developing, providing scalable options for health, agri and other sectors: FM Nirmala Sitharaman
• 100 labs will be set up for developing apps using 5G services in engineering institutions: FM Nirmala Sitharaman
• Teacher training will be envisioned through innovative pedagogy, continuous professional development, curriculum transaction and ICT implementation. The district institutes of education and training will be developed into vibrant institutes of excellence for this purpose: FM Nirmala Sitharaman
• National Child Trust, Children's Book Trust and other sources to be encouraged to provide and replenish non-curricular titles in regional languages and English, to these libraries; collaboration with NGOs working in literacy also to be done: FM Nirmala Sitharaman
• PM VIKAS (Pradhan Mantri Vishwakarma Kaushal Samman), which was announced in Budget 2023, will include skilled people who are engaged in various traditional and skilled professions.
• To skill the youth for international opportunities, 30 Skill India International Centres will be set up across different States: FM Nirmala Sitharaman
• To provide support to 47 lakh youths in 3 years, a Direct Benefit Transfer under a pan India national apprenticeship scheme will be rolled out: FM Sitharaman

• States will be encouraged to set up physical libraries for them at panchayat and ward levels and provide infrastructure for accessing the National Digital Library resources: FM Nirmala Sitharaman

• Indian Institute of Millet Research will be supported as a centre of excellence: FM Nirmala Sitharaman in Parliament 

• Leading industry players will partner in conducting inter-disciplinary research, develop cutting-edge applications & scalable problem solutions in the areas of agriculture, health and sustainable cities: Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman

Updated as on February 1, 2023 at 1:11 PM

In last year’s Education budget, the financial allocation was Rs. 1.04 lakh crore which was more than the funds allocated in 2021-22. A total of Rs 93,224 crore (Budget estimate) was allocated to the education sector in 2021-22. 

Education Budget Highlights: Important Facts & Figures of Indian Education Budget 2022-23

• World-class universities will be allowed to offer courses in financial services and technology free of Indian regulations
• AICTE will take lead in improving urban planning courses
• One class, one TV channel' program of PM eVIDYA will be expanded from 12 to 200 TV channels. This will enable all states to provide supplementary education in regional languages for classes 1 to 12
• 5 academic institutions on urban planning to be made centers of excellence. The institutions will get an endowment of Rs 250 crore each
• A digital university will be established to provide access to students across the country for world-class quality universal education with a personalized learning experience at their doorstep. This will be made available in different Indian languages and ICT formats. The university will be built on a network hub and spoke model
• High-quality e-content in all spoken languages will be developed for delivery via the internet, mobile phones, tv, and through radio and digital teachers. The competitive mechanism for the development of quality e-content by the teachers will be set up to empower and equip them with digital tools of teaching and facilitate better learning outcomes
• Agricultural universities will revise syllabi to meet the needs of modern-day farming
• Skilling programs will be reoriented, and ITIs will start courses on skilling. The Digital DESH e-portal will be launched for skilling, upskilling & reskilling of the youth 
• NDA Admit Card 2024
• SSC CHSL Notification 2024
• Karnataka 2nd PUC Result 2024
• MP Board 10th, 12th Result 2024
• Bihar Board Matric 10th Result 2024
• Bihar Board Result 2024 Class 10
• Bihar Board Class 10th Result by Jagran Josh
• Class 10th Result 2024 Bihar Board

Trending Categories

• Karnataka Board
• Andhra Pradesh Board
• Uttar Pradesh Board
• Chhattisgarh Board
• Madhya Pradesh Board
• Jharkhand Board
• Maharashtra Board
• Uttarakhand Board

University of South Florida

Lifelong Learning

Office of University Community Partnerships

Main Navigation

How to Finance Your Master's Degree or Continuing Education

• Leigh Perkins
• January 19, 2022
• Professional Development
• Text-based Story

Don’t assume grad school or continuing education is out of reach for your budget. Paying for your post-grad or professional courses can be a challenge, but it’s completely doable. Put a little research, creative problem solving, and our easy tips into the task, and you’ll figure out how to finance your master’s degree or continuing education .

Financing Higher Education

According to Sallie Mae, almost a quarter of school costs are paid by grad students’ earnings or personal savings. If you don’t have that kind of cash flow, though, consider other options for financing higher education.

Start With Free Money

Loans may need to be part of your equation, but it’s best to begin your calculations with financial aid that doesn’t have to be repaid.

An estimated $2.6 billion in financial aid was left on the table in 2018 because students failed to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) from the U.S. Department of Education. And FAFSA is not just for undergraduates. It can help you land federal aid based on financial need for graduate school, too. The application is free, and there are several free-money options available to you when your FAFSA is complete, such as federal work study programs.

Grants and Fellowships

Federal aid is applicable to some continuing education programs, such as grants for medical residency or the Pell Grant for postbaccalaureate teacher certification, but federal aid in the form of grants does not apply to most graduate programs.

For graduate school, grants and fellowships are almost interchangeable terms, the main difference being what the institution bestowing the funding prefers to call it. There are government-backed grants, from organizations like the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Energy, and fellowships funded by private organizations, such as the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation or the American Economic Association. The best place to begin searching for grants and fellowships is through the websites of the schools you’re considering, in particular the programs you are targeting for grad school. You can also check out online scholarship search tools.

Most grants and fellowships are competitive, so do your homework, complete your applications carefully, and submit early. Preferably, you’ll be ready to hit send on your application the day you learn you’re accepted into your grad school program of choice.

Scholarships

Graduate tuition can cost tens of thousands of dollars each year. Because graduate students are considered independent, you will report your own income on the FAFSA, which could make you eligible for more need-based scholarships. Grad students can check out USF’s STARS Scholarship database to read about USF Foundation Scholarships and many other scholarships to students enrolling in master’s programs . There are millions of dollars available to grad students for national and niche scholarships .

Can you qualify for specific scholarships that take your background, interests, or undergrad degree into account?

• Your heritage: There are scholarships designated just for Hispanic grad students, Native Americans, Korean Americans, Pacific Islanders, and more.
• Your alma mater: You may qualify for a discount if you apply to graduate school where you earned your bachelor’s degree.
• Your area of specialization: Check into field-specific graduate scholarships, such as a master’s in education, women in technology, accounting scholarships, and MBA scholarships.

Assistantships

Graduate assistantships allow you to work in a support role at a university under the supervision of a faculty member. You may teach, be a research assistant, do clerical tasks, or help with grading. USF graduate assistants earn a stipend and are eligible for tuition payment and some additional benefits, such as health insurance.

Employee Benefits

Under U.S. tax code, employers may offer up to $5,250 per year in tuition reimbursement for college courses, which is deductible for your company and not counted as taxable income for you. More than half of employers are estimated to currently offer tuition assistance. If yours isn’t one of them, make a sales pitch. One possible incentive: Signing a contract to commit to working for the company for a minimum term after receiving your graduate degree.

College Savings Account

If you didn’t run through your entire 529 plan in undergraduate school, you can apply what’s left to your graduate school costs. Though the time horizon is shorter to save for graduate school, it is also possible to set up a 529 plan dedicated just for graduate school.

Take a Look at Loans

Although they account for only 25 percent of all students in higher education, graduate students account for nearly half of student debt . Because there is no cap for graduate school borrowing – up to the full cost of attendance charged by the college – nearly a quarter of graduate borrowers take out more than the lifetime limit for undergraduate borrowers in just a single year of grad school.

It is one thing to compare the average undergraduate debt ($28,950) to an MBA ($66,300). But it is a whole new level of payback stress for a law degree ($145,000) or a medical degree ($201,490). Add the fact that interest rates are higher for grad school than for undergrad, and the debt can turn into a long-term burden.

Wondering how to minimize the hit to your financial future when you really need a loan for graduate school? Take out only what is absolutely necessary, access every tax benefit available, and pull out all the stops to save pennies and earn cash while in grad school.

These are the types of loan programs available for graduate students:

• Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans: Sometimes called Stafford Loans, these are not based on financial need and do not require a credit check. You are responsible for paying all interest on these loans, which begins accruing while you’re still in school and during your grace period or deferment. It is best to max out these loans before you sign on to PLUS or private loans.
• Federal Direct Graduate PLUS Loans: These loans are for expenses not covered by other financial aid offered by your school. They require a credit check and carry a higher fixed-interest rate than federal direct loans.
• Private Loans: Depending on your credit score or a co-signer’s endorsement, you could qualify for a competitive rate on a loan from a private bank or other lender, usually without the origination and processing fees associated with federal programs. The downside is they don’t offer long forbearance periods. If you are planning on law school, medical school or business school, it’s likely you’ll find a lender offering a loan specific to your degree.

Paying for Continuing Education

While there are not as many options to finance your continuing education, the upside is that career training, certifications, and continuing ed programs are much less expensive than graduate school.

Philanthropic organizations, private agencies, state education departments, and the schools themselves often offer scholarships for continuing education and certification programs. For example, there are specific scholarships available for paralegal students .

State societies, clubs, and professional groups often subsidize travel and attendance at conferences, CEU courses, and training programs. If you’re in a regional human resources group, for example, they might underwrite your tuition for SHRM certification .

Federal student loans only apply to full-time graduate students, so stand-alone certification courses or part-time professional development programs don’t qualify. However, several private lenders do offer loans for career training programs. Sallie Mae’s Career Training Smart Option Student Loan is designed specifically for nondegree-seeking students, professional certifications, and culinary and technical school students.

If you’re confident the return on your investment will be adequate (and fairly immediate), you can also consider paying for a course with a credit card, but do so cautiously. Interest rates and fees for credit cards are often triple or quadruple a student loan rate.

The good news is that the IRS allowance for employer tuition reimbursement applies to career training and continuing education. The bad news is that only about half of employers offer this in an employee’s benefits package. If yours does not include the $5,250 that can be deducted by your company for courses, make a suggestion to your boss and to HR to add it. If it’s not a formal perk but there is a program that will help you perform your job better, write a letter to your supervisor explaining the benefits to your business. In your letter, ask if the company would be willing to pay for the program or at least approve paid time off for instruction.

USF Can Help You Reach Your Next Goal

No matter where you’re headed in your career, USF Corporate Training and Professional Education is here to guide you. Thinking of graduate school? We offer exceptional GMAT and LSAT prep courses. Planning a big pivot? Navigate a career change with our business, technology, and leadership training. Browse our programs to see if they can point you in the right direction for continuing education.

Return to article listing

Explore More Categories

• Director's Corner
• Hospitality
• Human Resources
• K-12 Education
• Leadership and Management
• Process Improvement
• Project Management
• Sales and Marketing

About Corporate Training and Professional Education

USF Corporate Training and Professional Education empowers people to craft their future without limits through engaging professional growth learning and certification programs. Its programs focus on an array of topics – human resources, project management, paralegal, process improvement, leadership skills, technology, and much more.

Chicago Public Schools shares student-to-teacher ratios used in new budgeting formula

Sign up for Chalkbeat Chicago’s free daily newsletter to keep up with the latest education news.

Elementary schools will get one teacher for every 26 students next year and high schools will get one teacher for every 21 students, according to details about the new budget formula replacing student-based budgeting shared by Chicago Public Schools officials.

Those ratios will decline for higher-needs schools — potentially providing them with additional teachers — and all schools will be staffed with at least 10 classroom teachers for the 2024-25 school year, officials told Local School Council members Thursday night.

The numbers discussed by CPS officials shed additional light on how the switch to a new position-based budget formula that’s partially based on needs will affect schools, teachers, and students. However, the student-to-teacher ratios outlined by officials are not necessarily equivalent to class sizes.

Principals are slated to get detailed school budgets with actual positions and dollar amounts on Monday.

Officials said the total amount of funding that is allocated to schools “will not be cut,” but “individual schools’ funding levels may change.”

The $9.4 billion budget for the current 2023-24 school year categorized $4.8 billion as school-level funding.

CPS plans to use a recently updated Opportunity Index , which was created during the pandemic, to measure a school’s need and distribute resources more equitably. It’s based on how many students with disabilities, English learners, and students from low-income households are enrolled, and the socioeconomics of the surrounding neighborhood, among other factors. Schools with higher scores are considered to have higher needs.

Every CPS school will get a principal, an assistant principal, a clerk, at least one counselor, and at least one part-time school assistant. The number of counselors and assistants will increase at schools with more students or more needs; elementary schools will get an additional counselor for every 600 students, while high schools will get an additional counselor for every 500 students. High schools with more than 300 students will also get an athletic director.

Special education teachers and paraprofessionals will continue to be funded centrally.

Become a Chalkbeat sponsor

Elementary schools will be allocated at least three “holistic” teachers for specialty classes, such as art, physical education, or foreign language. The formula will provide one specialty position for every five core classroom teachers at schools with more students.

“We believe that the daily experience for our students will be joyful, affirming and meet students’ social and emotional needs, and prioritizes historically underserved students,” said CPS Chief Budget Officer Mike Sitkowski.

Principals will still get flexible or discretionary money in addition to the base number of positions, officials said. Elementary schools will get at least $365 per student and high schools will get at least $1,095 per student. More money per student is added based on a school’s Opportunity Index score.

The switch away from budgeting money to schools based on student enrollment to a system that promises minimum staffing based on need and enrollment isn’t the only big fiscal transition coming up for CPS.

Next year’s budget will be the last to benefit from federal COVID money, and officials have said there’s about $300 million remaining for the coming school year. Those relief dollars will be used to help plug the district’s projected budget deficit and will help reduce the shortfall to $391 million , officials have said.

In order to further reduce the budget gap, the district is looking for cuts at the central office level, instead of making cuts to schools to balance the budget, officials said. CPS is also seeking a larger funding increase from the state.

Sitkowski said principals will receive their school budgets next week. Local School Councils will need to vote on them so principals can submit them back to the district’s budget office in early May.

Reema Amin contributed.

Becky Vevea is the bureau chief for Chalkbeat Chicago. Contact Becky at [email protected] .

Students in Craigmont High’s new Earth and space sciences class watched a preview before looking up to the sky.

At the Crispus Attucks Museum, residents celebrated the eclipse with a program that also honored African traditions and ancestry.

Some parents pulled their kids out of school as the exceedingly rare phenomenon appeared in New York City’s skies on Monday.

Vick is set to start a three-year term as president of the organization of nearly 40,000 educators in July.

Chalkbeat is collaborating with newsrooms across Colorado on a survey asking voters which issues matter to them.

This year, Newark Public Schools extended summer school program hours until 6 p.m. for students in elementary, middle, and high school.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Georgia Town Basks in Bountiful Filming. The State Pays.

When movies are made in Thomasville, Ga., it welcomes celebrities and an infusion of cash. But the financial incentives that attract studios have cost the state billions.

By Jonathan Abrams and Matt Stevens

Jonathan Abrams reported from Thomasville, Ga., and Matt Stevens from New York.

It is no wonder that moviemakers saw potential in Thomasville, Ga., as a stand-in for Main Street U.S.A. Cobblestone streets and mom-and-pop stores speckle the downtown of this city of 18,000 that is caked in red clay soil and nestled among rolling hills.

Just as attractive to some of those producers are Georgia’s lavish filming incentives, which have made Thomasville a cost-effective place to make modest pictures with major stars. Dustin Hoffman came for the rom-com “Sam & Kate.” A children’s book adaptation, “The Tiger Rising,” brought Dennis Quaid and Queen Latifah to town.

But what is good on the ground for local economies — Thomasville says each of the six movies filmed there has provided an economic boost of about $1 million — can simultaneously be a drain on state coffers .

Some Georgia lawmakers wondered whether it might be wise to put some limits on an uncapped tax incentive program that has given billions of dollars to Hollywood studios, scrambling this week in hopes of passing a bill that would modify the program.

How much money have states been spending?

Over the last 20 years, states have given movie and television productions more than $25 billion in filming incentives. Thirty-eight states currently offer some form of incentive. Georgia’s lauded program has poured more than $5 billion into Hollywood since 2015. New York has spent at least $7 billion, and California has dedicated more than $3 billion to try to retain productions.

Why do states want to encourage filming?

Supporters of film incentives see them as an engine for job creation. After all, when productions come to town, they need electricians, hair stylists and many other crew members to make movie magic. Productions also spend money while working — money that trickles through local economies to hotels, diners and dry cleaners.

Are there any downsides?

Incentives can be effective at luring projects. But economists warn that using them to do so is very expensive and offers minimal bang for your buck. Study after study has found that the tax revenue generated by film incentive programs is a quarter, or even a dime, of every dollar invested. In some programs, each job that is directly created can cost taxpayers more than $100,000.

And yet states are handing out cash?

Incentives come in different forms. Many states do offer cash rebates or grants, which are paid out directly to production companies. Other states give some form of a tax credit. Depending on the state, tax credits can be used toward tax liability, converted into a refund or sold.

Wait, studios sell their tax credits?

Yes. Many states offer a transferable tax credit. Studios can then sell those credits to companies with high state-tax liabilities. By selling them, often at a slight discount, studios can cash out and buyers can receive modest tax relief. As a result, companies with minimal ties to the entertainment industry have become a hidden part of the incentive ecosystem.

Who’s buying these credits?

Companies like Best Buy, U.S. Bank and Dr Pepper buy these tax credits from productions. High-net-worth individuals also sometimes purchase them. Consider one example: The production company behind “The Trial of the Chicago 7” received a $5.2 million tax credit from New Jersey that it sold to Apple Inc. for $4.8 million.

Can we track where all this money is going?

It’s hard. This process involves vast sums of tax revenue that states are owed but never collect. Because the money does not come into the state treasury to begin with, it is less obvious that the revenue has been lost. And that can make transferable tax credits politically palatable.

Stuffy meetings about abstract budget crunching can feel like distant concerns in Thomasville, a bastion for quail hunters that is much closer to Tallahassee, Fla., than to Atlanta. To residents, the evidence that the state’s film subsidies are a boon to business is as clear as day.

When “The Tiger Rising” became the first major movie to film in Thomasville in late 2019, the studio Thomasville Pictures wanted to make it apparent that productions would benefit local business owners. So it decided to slip $2 bills into its cash per diems.

The distinctive bills were presented as payment at Jonah’s Fish & Grits. Actors handed them across the counter at Grassroots Coffee. They were also laid down as tips at Liam’s, a local restaurant that fills up with crew members and celebrities alike.

Rhonda Foster, who owns and runs Liam’s with her family, estimates that the restaurant makes an additional $30,000 — enough to add a few full-time employees — whenever monthlong filming is underway. Machine Gun Kelly and his girlfriend, the actor Megan Fox, became regulars while he was working on “One Way.” During “Bandit,” so did Mel Gibson.

“Those of us that own businesses are more than happy to see them here,” Ms. Foster said.

But for all the extra revenue and civic pride generated in Thomasville and other municipalities in Georgia, many economists worry that the state is paying too high a price so locals can spot Mr. Quaid cruising by in a Jeep or Mr. Hoffman sipping his coffee.

Because municipalities seldom forgo tax revenue, they see only the benefits of the program. But the subsidy — studios can get up to 30 percent of their production costs back — is costly for the state, which is legally required to pass a balanced budget.

Between 2015 and 2022, Georgia paid out more than $5.2 billion in tax incentives for filming, according to data obtained by The New York Times. State estimates project that the program will cost Georgia another $2.5 billion altogether for 2023, 2024 and 2025.

J.C. Bradbury, an economics professor at Kennesaw State University who has studied the state’s program , estimated that the $800 million in tax credits Georgia handed out in 2018 cost each household $220. That fiscal year, the state planned to allocate less than $300 million from its general fund to its Department of Public Health .

“I would be happy driving a Ferrari,” Professor Bradbury said, “but I don’t buy a Ferrari because I’d rather have the other things that $500,000 could buy.”

Few can deny that Georgia’s spending has resulted in a formidable infrastructure to accommodate incoming productions. Dozens of states offer filming incentives, and some have struggled to train enough crew members and build enough soundstages to fully leverage the tax breaks. Not so in Georgia, which has for years been held up as a national success story.

Tyler Perry’s 330-acre studio complex stands tall in Atlanta , which has earned the nickname “Hollywood of the South” ; nearby, the 32 stages at Trilith Studios are home to Marvel movies . On-location shoots are also thriving, whether for television shows like “The Walking Dead” (Senoia) and “Stranger Things” (Jackson) or films like “May December” (Savannah) and “The Color Purple” (Macon).

Thomasville Pictures was founded in 2016 by Ryan Smith and Allen Cheney, a fourth-generation Thomasvillian who had moved to Los Angeles to begin his producing career. Their vision to film in southern Georgia overlapped with the goals of Bonnie Hayes, who was then Thomasville’s tourism director.

Ms. Hayes had hosted a local-interest television show for years before teaching broadcasting to high schoolers. Her students, she found, had no local outlet for pursuing passions like film after graduating.

“I would like for South Georgia to get a piece of that big money pie, to employ some of these really great creative kids,” said Ms. Hayes, who became Thomas County’s first film liaison.

Business owners said no when Marvel Studios asked to film a project that would close downtown for more than a month, Ms. Hayes said. But Thomasville’s small-town charm has come through since.

For “Bandit,” a closed restaurant became a strip club, and a member of a car club helped secure a few dozen 1980s vehicles. When one film wanted to use a specific house, Ms. Hayes persuaded the member of her church who lived there to allow it.

The films that Thomasville Pictures has brought to the city were not box-office bonanzas, making a combined $1.7 million from ticket sales. But they brought an infusion of cash and jobs to the region, which supporters of the film tax incentives say shows that the program is working as intended .

One recent report commissioned by the Georgia Screen Entertainment Coalition, an advocacy group for studios and their industry partners in the state, found that every dollar Georgia spends on film tax incentives generated $6.30 in value to the state economy. The same report found that the tax credit supported more than 59,000 jobs in 2022.

In a statewide online survey of likely voters conducted this month for the coalition, roughly two-thirds of the respondents said they were aware of the state’s film credit program and supported it.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Cheney say the response has been overwhelmingly positive when they talk to Thomasville business owners after each film.

“I didn’t want to just steamroll through it, use and abuse all the elements that we could and then head out, like some people might if they were just coming in to save money and they have no loyalty to an area,” Mr. Cheney said.

Economists not connected to the film industry say the big picture is more complicated.

“The argument against film subsidies isn’t that no one benefits,” Prof. Bradbury said. “There are clearly winners and losers, and if you are one of the winners, you’re obviously going to like them.”

State auditors published a report in December estimating that every dollar invested in the film incentive program was returning 19 cents in tax revenue. An auditors’ report in 2020 found that the Georgia Department of Economic Development had inaccurately nearly doubled the economic impact of the film tax credit while also reporting misleading job data.

The department eventually made some adjustments , and lawmakers responded to oversight concerns by requiring audits for projects receiving the credit .

This legislative session, a proposal to place even a very modest adjustable cap on the program’s spending met resistance.

As lawmakers tried to hammer out a compromise this week, they effectively gutted the cap proposal by carving out an exemption for productions shot inside Georgia’s biggest studios. A last-ditch effort to revive the plan died on Thursday, the last day of the session.

In Thomasville, not all business owners are sanguine about the filming that has arrived. Heather Abbott recalled how the actress Anne Heche bought several items, including a $300 purse, from her jewelry and leather goods store when Heche was filming “Supercell.”

Not long after Ms. Heche, who died in 2022 , hopped on her bike and pedaled off, Ms. Abbott weighed the cost of that economic engine. She said that when filming shuts down access to her store for a month, she loses about $2,000, and that a crew once taped over her windows without asking permission.

“Let’s get real, that tax credit is for a rich person,” Ms. Abbott said. “They are trying to offset their income by impeding on mine.”

Mr. Smith said that Thomasville Pictures had received $6 million in state tax credits for five of its films, and that the studio hoped to make three movies in the area this year.

It may yet get a little more help. The Georgia Regional Film and Entertainment Alliance, which represents smaller cities like Thomasville, has an idea: an additional 10 percent tax credit for all productions that film outside metro Atlanta.

Jonathan Abrams writes about the intersections of sports and culture and the changing cultural scenes in the South. More about Jonathan Abrams

Matt Stevens writes about arts and culture news for The Times. More about Matt Stevens

Sports betting will not be legalized in Georgia

SAVANNAH, Ga. (WSAV) — A bill to legalize sports betting in Georgia has failed yet again.

Back in February, the Senate approved the amendment. However, the House Higher Education Committee could not agree on the specifics of the bill. That includes where the revenue from betting would be allocated, and whether credit cards could be used to place bets.

Sports betting is becoming increasingly popular, so some lawmakers think it should be up to the people to decide whether the bill gets passed. However, the bill failed to be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate, which was needed for it to appear on the ballot.

Lawmakers say that after discussions with prominent betting companies like DraftKings and Fanduel, they realized that sports betting is already prominent in Georgia. They say the state might as well profit from it.

Besides the profit, passing the bill would give lawmakers the opportunity to regulate the industry. “Just like everything- if you don’t find a way to put guard rails you’re not gonna stop people from doing it. You cannot legislate morality you can only legislate morality. We hope to establish framework for which people choose to govern themselves,” said Derek Mallow of the State Senate.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WSAV-TV.